MASTER 
NEGATIVE 

NO.  95-8251 3 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  (Title  17,  United  States  Code) 
governs  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other  reproductions  of  copyrighted 
materials  including  foreign  works  under  certain  conditions.  In  addition 
the  United  States  extends  protection  to  foreign  works  by  means  of 
various  international  conventions,  bilateral  agreements,  and 
proclamations. 

Under  certain  conditions  specified  in  the  law,  libraries  and  archives  are 
authorized  to  furnish  a  photocopy  or  other  reproduction.  One  of  these 
specified  conditions  is  that  the  photocopy  or  reproduction  is  not  to  be 
"used  for  any  purpose  other  than  private  study,  scholarship,  or  research. 
If  a  user  makes  a  request  for,  or  later  uses,  a  photocopy  or  reproduction 
for  purposes  in  excess  of  "fair  use,"  that  user  may  be  liable  for  copynght 
infringement. 

The  Columbia  University  Libraries  reserve  the  right  to  refuse  to  accept  a 
copying  order  if.  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order  would  involve 
violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


Author: 


Beer,  George  Louis 


Title: 


The  old  colonial  system 


1660-1754 


2V 


Place: 


New  York 

Date: 

1912 


MASTER   NEGATIVE   « 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DIVISION 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARGET 


ORIGINAL  MATERIAL  AS  FILMED  -    EXISTING  BIBLIOGRAPHIC  RECORD 


I  997.3 
B39 


Beer,  George  Louis,  1872-1920. 

NeTvVolt'Tr  m'^'^T'  1^^^1^^4,  by  George  Louis  Beer  ... 
JNew  rork,  The  Macmillan  company,  1912. 

157^8^S*'  "■*  """"'^'^  '"'«'  »''«'"«  »'  the  British  colonial  system, 
No  more  published. 

^^  CONTONTs—pt.  I.  The  establishment  of  the  system,  1060-1688.    2.  v. 

A-nfer?ca.^'"rTiHe°"'~'^'""""''""°°-  3-«'-  Brit--CoIonIes-North 
Library  of  Congress  JV1011.B4  1»— 1923 


Copy  2. 

Copyright    A  330837 


(33a3i 


RESTRICTIONS  ON  USE: 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


FILM  SIZE:  .'^mm 


REDUCTION  RATIO:      /Z:  1 


IMAGE  PLACEMENT:  lA    ^lA)    IB     IIB 


DATE  FILMED:    Co  H  /^S* 


INITIALS:     MK-  /g-T  • 


TRACKING  #  : 


AlSZr      OGQ'ii^    nLL^Y 


FILMED  BY  PRESERVATION  RESOURCES,  BETHLEHEM,  PA. 


> 

CD 

m 
rn 
O 


io 


X 
-< 


A^ 


.^:< 


^, 


.'9'A 


■V? 


^^ 


.'b^ 


u> 
ai 

3 
3 


O  > 

?2.o 


IS 


o 
■a  p 

^i 

M  CO 

(ji 

COM 

VO 

O 


-^. 


.a 


^* 


c^- 


.<V 


3 
3 


> 

0)0 

o  m 

CD  O 


n      K)v=: 


00  ?r 

CJ|3  ^ 

^  o  o 

CO 


N 


<P-^ 


^3 


e^ 


«^1 


A. 


<P-^ 


:V 


^:^ 


^^ 


O 

3 
3 


o 

3 
3 


^^ 


rX«^' 


V 


?^ 


fa 


^« 


O 

o 

3 
3 


V 


.*<' 


r.<^ 


fe 


'b 


^ 


¥* 


f^ 


¥cr 


O 


i^    I 


o^ 


CO 


b 


^  i^ 


to 


I 


00 


ro 
In 


1.0  mm 


1.5  mm 


2.0  mm 


ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
abcdetghi|klmnopqrstuvwxyz  1234567890 


ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzl234567890 


ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 

1234567890 


2.5  mm 


ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 

1234567890 


^O 


f^ 


^^ 


m 

H 

O 
O 

■o  m  -o 

>  c  CO 
Z  ^  ^ 

0</)  ; 

m 

i! 
o 

m 


.^' 


^^ 


ip 


fp 


1— « 

IV3 

Ol 

0 

3 
3 

3 

Q> 

CT 

ABCDE 
cdefghi 

=^0 

FGH 
jkIm 

HIJKLMN 
Tinopqrst 

IJKLMN 
nopqrst 

OPQRSl 
uvwxyzl 

OPQR 
uvwxy 

J^c 

M  CO 

01$ 

1:^-1 

N>c: 

<yix 

^-< 

ooM 

S^ 

cr>x 

•vJ-C 

OOM 

VO 

0 

oms 


Cctbnnltfa  ^niiotviitp 


B39 

V.I 


LIBRARY 


School  of  Business 


Given  by 

Thriiman  VtWan  Metre 


THE   OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 

I66O-I754 

Part  I.  — Vol.  L 


THE 


OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


1660-1754 


BY 


'T^^)(^^ 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

HBW  YORK  •   BOSTON  •    CHICAGO 
DALLAS  •   SAN  FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Limited 

LONDON  •  BOMBAY  •  CALCUTTA 
MKLBOURNB 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  Lto, 

TORONTO 


GEORGE   LOUIS   BEER 

,^„     T^cA    T76c"  "THE  ORIGINS 

AUTHOR  OK  "BKmsH  ^'^^^^^^^^^Z'silt'Tsyt^eeo^^ 

OF  THE  BRITISH  COLONIAL  SYSTEM,    15/0 

PART   I 
THE  ESTABLISHMENT   OF   THE  SYSTEM 

1660-168  8 


IN   TWO   VOLUMES 

VOL.  I 


•  • 


'  •  • 


•  •  • 

•  •  •    •  •  • 
,•  •»•  •  ••  ••  • 


•  •.!•••.::. 


•  ••• 


•  •  • 


•  •••••••• 


•      •   •  •  •  irr'^1.    W«,V»    •      •  •      •  1 

•,/  :  'iNrtfi  gfltR 

THE   MACMilia?^..  jOaillPANY 
:..::. 


1912 

/ill  rights  reserved 


i*f* 


.1 


CO 

en 


o 


:S'KoK^ 


Copyright,  1913, 

By  the  macmillan  company. 


Set  up  and  electrotyped.    Published  January,  1913. 


Avec  de  la  reflexion^  des  lectures  et  de  V habitude,  on 
reussit  par  degris  d  reproduire  en  soi-meme  des  sentiments 
auxquels  d'abord  on  etait  etr anger;  nous  voyons  qu'un  autre 
homme,  dans  un  autre  temps,  a  dH  sentir  autrement  que 
nous-memes;  nous  entrons  dans  ses  vues,  puis  dans  ses 
goUts;  nous  nous  mettons  d.  son  point  de  vue,  nous  le  com- 
prenonsy  et,  d  mesure  que  nous  le  comprenons  mieux,  nous 
nous  trouvons  un  peu  moins  sots. 

H.  Taine,  Voyage  en  Italic,  I,  pp.  5,  6. 

La  storia,  come  tutti  i  fenomeni  della  vita,  t  Vopera 
inconsapevole  di  sforzi  "  infinitamente  piccoli  „ ;  compiuti 
disordinatamente  da  uomini  singoli  e  da  gruppi  di  uomini, 
quasi  sempre  per  motivi  immediati,  il  cui  effetto  definitivo 
trascende  sempre  la  intenzione  e  la  conoscenza  dei  contem- 
poranei;  e  appena  si  rivela,  qualche  volta,  alle  generazioni 
seguenti. 

GUGLIELMO  FeRRERO, 

Grandezza  e  Decadenza  di  Roma,  I,  pp.  ix,  x. 


•     « 

•  t    • 

•  t  •  • 

•  •  • 


•       •     • 
••  •     • 


•  •  • 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 

•  •  •  •  • 


•   .!!.•  •••••••••     •••    ••    • 

•/      *    ••*      »•    ••    •••••••    t 

*       •    ••»•••••      •     •• 


*  • 


,•  •  » 


J.  6.  Cuflihig  Co*.  -'Bferi«i«k»«k  Smith  Co. 
Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


I 


PREFACE 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  work  as  a  whole  to  describe 
the  establishment,  development,  and  operation  of  the 
English  colonial  system  from  the  days  of  its  formal 
creation  down  to  the  period  leading  to  its  disintegration. 
The  era  of  inchoate  beginnings  has  been  treated  in 
the  writer's  "Origins  of  the  British  Colonial  System, 
1 5  78- 1 660,"  and  the  transitional  years  preceding  the 
troublous  days  of  the  American  Revolution  have  been 
discussed  in  some  detail  in  the  writer's  "  British  Colo- 
nial Policy,  1 754-1 765."  Thus  this  work  is  not  only 
unhampered  by  problems  of  origins,  but  it  is  to  a  great 
extent  Uberated  from  those  controversial  questions  which 
ultimately  were  decided,  if  not  solved,  by  the  ordeal  of 

battle. 

The  term  "  colonial  system  "  has  no  precise  connota- 
tion, and  is  susceptible  of  varying  meanings  of  more 
or  less  ample  extension.  As  employed  here,  it  is 
synonymous  with  that  complex  system  of  regulations 
whose  fundamental  aim  was  to  create  a  self-sufficient 
commercial  empire  of  mutually  complementary  eco- 
nomic parts.  An  understanding  of  this  system  must 
rest  primarily  upon  an  analysis  of  the  economic  theories 
then  current,  mainly  in  so  far  as  they  found  expression  in 
the  Acts  of  Trade  and   Navigation.      But   these  laws 


www 

vm 


PREFACE 


PREFACE 


IX 


by    no    means    constituted    the    whole    system.     The 
scheme   of  imperial  defence  was  a  closely  correlated 
part,  and  the  English  fiscal  arrangements,  as  well  as 
the  method  of  regulating  the  slave-trade,  were  integrally 
connected  with  it.     In  addition,  it  will  be  essential  to 
study  carefully  both   the   administrative  machinery  in 
England   and  that  established   in  the  colonies  for  the 
purpose  of  carrying  into  effect  these  various  laws  and 
regulations.     For,  obviously,  the   efficacy  of  a  system 
cannot  be  gauged  without  a  knowledge  of  the  means 
and  extent  of  its  enforcement.     Furthermore,  in  order 
to   understand  the  operation  of  these  regulations,  it  is 
essential  to  examine  the  political  and  economic  devel- 
opment of  the  separate  colonies,  not,  however,  as  inde- 
pendent processes  of  social  evolution,  but  only  to  the 
extent  that  they  were  affected  by  English  policy.     Vari- 
ous fundamental  phases  of  colonial  development  have 
consequently  been   kept  in  the  dim   background,  and 
some   even   have  been   ignored.     Thus,   although   the 
purpose  is  not  to  describe  the  economic  genesis  of  the 
United  States,  and  although  the  point  of  view  is  pri- 
marily the  imperial  one,  the  work  is  something  more 
and  also  something  less  than  merely  an  economic  his- 
tory of  the  old  Empire.     One  of  its  chief  aims  is  to 
ascertain  precisely  what  the  statesmen  of  the  day  sought 
to  accomplish,  what  means  they  employed  for  their  pur- 
poses, to  what  extent  these  instruments  were  adapted  to 
the  actual  situation,  and  how  the  various  parts  of  the 
Empire  developed  under  these  regulations. 


It  is  a  platitude   scarcely  worth  mentioning  that  all 
historical  facts  should  be  approached  without  any  pre- 
conceived  ideas  as  to  their  meaning,  but  it  is  not  suffi- 
ciently  realized  that  economic  data  especially  are  liable 
to  be  distorted  by  the  investigator's  personal  theory  of 
social  philosophy.     In   this   work,  the  facts   presented 
have  not  been  weighed  either  in  the  scale  of  the  free- 
trader  or  in  that  of  the  protectionist.     In  the  form  in 
which  they  are  presented,  they  can   be  further  inter- 
preted by  either  school,  and  probably  both  will  draw 
from  them  conclusions  satisfactory  to  themselves.     The 
material  has  purposely  been  treated  in  a  purely  historical 
manner.     No  attention,  for  instance,  has  been  paid  to 
such  questions  as  that  raised  by  Adam  Smith,  whether 
the  diversion  of  British  capital  from  the  European  to 
the  colonial  trade  was  a  national   disadvantage.     Nor 
has  an  attempt  been  made  to  ascertain  whether  in  real- 
ity  there   was   such   a  diversion;   and,   if   there   were, 
whether  it  was   a  direct  result  of  the  laws  of  trade. 
Such   questions    are    predominantly   economic   and   to 
some  extent  academic.     For  our  purposes  it  is  merely 
necessary  to  see  what  the  legislators  and  statesmen  con- 
templated and  if  the  desired  results  followed,  dismissing 
all  such  purely  hypothetical  questions,  whether  the  Em- 
pire would  not  have  been  better  off  without  any  attempts 
to  mould  its  economic  growth,  or  whether  the  actual 
results  attained  were  not  in  despite  of  these  efforts  or 
at  the  expense  of  other  and  possibly  more  vital  interests. 
No  answer  to  such  queries  can  carry  universal  con  vie- 


■^ 


X  PREFACE 

tion ;  and,  at  the  end  of  much  argumentation,  we  would 
be  just  about  where  we  started. 

The  authorities  for  this  work  are  manifold  in  nature 
and  origin.  To  a  preponderant  extent,  it  is  based  upon 
the  Colonial  State  Papers  in  the  Public  Record  Office 
in  London.  In  the  aggregate,  considerable  material  of 
importance  has  also  been  derived  from  the  Treasury, 
Admiralty,  Domestic,  and  Foreign  Papers  in  the  same 
repository.  A  large  number  of  the  official  docu- 
ments—  especially  such  as  relate  to  the  period  under 
consideration  in  this  section  of  the  work  —  have  been 
published  more  or  less  fully  by  the  British  Government 
in  the  various  calendars,  and  a  considerable  number 
have  appeared  in  such  other  collections  as  the  New 
York  Colonial  Documents,  the  Virginia  Magazine  of 
History  and  Biography,  and  Lefroy's  "  Memorials  of  the 
Bermudas."  In  addition  to  the  manuscript  sources, 
these  printed  materials  have  been  constantly  used,  but  as  a 
general  rule  the  most  important  of  the  documents,  both 
published  and  unpublished,  have  been  consulted  in  their 
original  form.  The  manuscript  volumes  of  the  Privy 
Council  Register  were  also  used  before  the  publication 
of  the  calendar  had  rendered  further  recourse  to  them 
largely  superfluous.  Some  invaluable  information  was 
also  derived  from  ,the  manuscripts  in  the  British  Mu- 
seum, as  well  as  from  those  in  the  Bodleian  at  Oxford. 
Naturally  the  English  and  colonial  statutes,  the  Journals 
of  the  House  of  Lords  and  House  of  Commons,  the 
reports  of  the  British  Historical  Manuscripts  Commis- 


PREFACE 


XI 


sion  were  continually  used.  Finally,  the  voluminous 
pamphlet  literature  of  the  day,  the  contemporary  dianes. 
various  collections  of  family  papers,  and  other  miscel- 
laneous sources  yielded  some  indispensable  imformation. 

In  its  entirety,  this  material  forms  an  imposing  mass, 
but  it  leaves   many  a  detailed   question   unanswered. 
Moreover,  its  very  bulk  is  embarrassing.    As  an  emi- 
nent  man  of  letters  with  a  marked  historical  bent  has 
said :  "  Quand  un  fait  n'est  connu  que  par  un  seul  te- 
moignage,  on  I'admet  sans  beaucoup  d'hesitation.     Les 
perplexit^s   commencent   lorsque  les   gvenements  sont 
rapportes  par  deux  ou  plusieurs  t^moins ;  car  leurs  te- 
moignages   sont   toujours    contradictoires    et    toujours 
inconciliables."     Had  Anatole  France  ever  investigated 
the  economic  history  of  the  seventeenth-century  English 
Empire,  he  would  even  more  fully  have  appreciated  the 
truth  of  his  own  words.     The  trace  of  deliberate  exag- 
geration in  them  could  then  have  been  omitted.     The 
statistics  available  for  that  period   are  not  only  most 
fragmentary,  but  they  were  gathered  in  a  thoroughly 
unscientific   manner.     Accurate   statistics   are  only  of 
most  recent  date  and  are  still  far  from  general.     More- 
over, a  considerable  portion  of  the  evidence  is  embodied 
in  memorials  and  petitions  from  interested  parties,  and 
hence  cannot  be  accepted  at  its  fage  value.     It  has  to 
be  compared  with  documents  emanating  from  opposing 
sources,  and  must  then  be  studied  in  connection  with 

other  data  in  order  to  estimate  the  degree  and  extent. 

of  its  credibility.    Without  some  knowledge  of  their 


xu 


PREFACE 


origin,  so  as  to  be  able  to  discount  the  personal  equa- 
tion, numbers  of  these  documents  would   have   to  be 
discarded  as  worthless.     Even  with  the  immeasurably 
more  complete  means  of  information  at  the  disposal  of 
the  student  of  present  economic  problems,  it  is  most 
difficult  to  reach  an  agreement  as  to  the  precise  facts. 
This  would  seem  a  hopeless  task  when  long  past  phe- 
nomena are  investigated.     Still,  the  general  course  of 
development  i^  the  old  Empire,  as  well  as  many  of  the 
subsidiary   currents,   can    be    traced    with   considerable 
precision;    and   this   after  all   is   the   essential   matter. 
Caution  and  care  must,  however,  be  observed  at  every 
turn;  and  definite  quantitative  terms  can  be  conscien- 
tiously  used   only  with   a  reservation  of  considerable 
doubt. 

Without  entering  the  polemical  lists,  where  the  ques- 
tion whether  or  no  history  is  an  art  or  a  science  can 
always  count  upon  attracting  intrepid  opposing  cham- 
pions, it  is  obvious  that  the  modem  historian's  method 
of  presentation  must  differ  radically  from  that  of  the 
artist.     "  A  picture  is  finished,"  said  one  of  the  greatest 
of  modern  painters,  "  when  all  trace  of  the  means  used 
to   bring  about   the   end   has   disappeared."     In   these 
days   of  critical   scholarship,  a  history  so  constructed, 
no   matter  how  authoritative   its  sources  were,  would 
have  scant  chance  of  escaping  the  fate  of  the  still-born. 
Hence   full    references    have    been   given   for   virtually 
every  statement.     In  the  foot-notes  has  also  been  printed 
considerable    illustrative    material;    and   to   this   place 


PREFACE 


xui 


likewise  has  been  relegated  a  mass  of  more  or  less  tech- 
nical matter,  which  will  probably  be  of  interest  and  impor- 
tance to  the  critical  student,  but  assuredly  would  not 
appeal  to  the  general  reader.  It  was  hoped  in  this 
way  to  keep  the  text  readable.  For  it  is  fully  realized 
that  what  Bishop  Stubbs  wrote  about  his  own  special 
field  of  investigation  is  at  least  equally  applicable  to 
this  branch  of  historical  work :  it  "  cannot  be  mastered, 
can  scarcely  be  approached,  —  without  an  effort." 

GEORGE  LOUIS  BEER. 

New  York  City, 
November  26, 1912* 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  I 

The  Colonial  Policv  of  the  Period  .  .  •  •  '  • 
An  era  of  marked  expansion  -  General  policy  of  Charles 
II  '.nd  his  advisers -Sir  George  Downing  and  Wilham 
Blathwayt  — England's  foreign  and  colonial  trade  — The 
opposition  to  emigration  leads  to  objections  to  colonization 
J.  The  answer  of  the  imperialists  —  The  transportation  of 
convicts  and  others  —  Governmental  regulation  of  emigra- 
tion—The economic  advantages  expected  from  coloniza- 
tion—The colony  as  a  source  of  supply  — The  preference 
for  the  plantation  type  of  colony. 


FAGE 


The  Laws  of  Trade 

FENCE 

The  Navigation 
—  The  Plantation 
statutes  —  Ireland 
tions  of  the  laws  — 
colonial  garrisons 
Barbary  pirates. 


CHAPTER  n 
AND   Navigation  and   Imperial  De- 

Act  of  1660  — The  Staple  Act  of  1663 
Duties  of  1673  —  Scotland  under  these 
and  the  colonies  —  Temporary  dispensa- 

-  The  system  of  imperial  defence  —  The 

—  The  West  Indian  buccaneers  —  The 


CHAPTER   in 


The  English  Fiscal  System  and  Imperial  Finances 

The  tariff  of  1660  —  Its  preferential  treatment  of  English 
colonial  products  — The  prohibition  to  plant  tobacco  in 
England  and  the  efforts  required  to  enforce  it  —  The  at- 
tempt in  1 67 1  to  increase  the  sugar  and  tobacco  duties  — 
The  impost  of  1685  and  colonial  opposition  to  it  —  The 
Crown's  dues  in  the  colonies  —  The  Restoration  settlement 


58 


128 


XV 


xvi 


CONTENTS 


in  the  Caribbee  Islands  —  The  four  and  a  half  per  cent 
revenue  and  the  opposition  of  Barbados  to  it  —  The  Vir- 
ginia quit-rents  —  The  establishment  of  a  permanent  rev- 
enue in  Virginia  under  the  control  and  at  the  disposal  of 
the  Crown,  and  the  attempt  to  do  so  in  Jamaica  —  The 
appointment  of  Blathwayt  as  Auditor-General  of  the  colo- 
nial revenues. 

CHAPTER   IV 

Central  and  Local  Administrative  Machinery 

Parliament  and  Crown  —  The  Privy  Council  and  its 
Committees  —  The  Secretaries  of  State  —  The  Council  for 
Foreign  Plantations  of  1660  —  The  Council  for  Trade  of 
1660  —  Its  revival  in  1668  and  that  of  the  colonial  council 
in  1670  —  The  Council  for  Trade  and  Plantations  of  1672 

—  The  Lords  of  Trade  —  The  Admiralty  and  the  Colonies 

—  The  Treasury  and  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  — 
The  Royal  Governor  —  The  naval  officers  —  The  collectors 
of  the  customs  —  The  Surveyor  General  of  the  Customs  — 
Quarrel  between  Giles  Bland  and  Governor  Berkeley  of 
Virginia  —  The  colonial  admiralty  courts  —  The  use  of  the 
navy  to  suppress  illegal  trading. 


PAGE 


224 


THE   OLD   COLONIAL   SYSTEM 

1660-1754 


CHAPTER   V 

The  Slave-trade  and  the  Plantation  Colonies 

Classification  of  the  colonies  according  to  their  imperial 
value  —  The  demand  for  slaves  in  the  West  Indies  —  The 
English  African  Company  —  Dutch  opposition  to  its  trade 
—  The  complaints  of  Barbados  against  the  Company  —  Its 
reorganization  in  1672 — Opposition  of  the  West  Indian 
colonies  to  the  Royal  African  Company  —  Its  attempts  to 
supply  Spanish  America  —  The  interlopers. 


316 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE   PERIOD 

An  era  of  marked  expansion  —  General  poKcy  of  Charles  II  and  his  advisers 
—  Sir  George  Downing  and  William  Blathwayt  —  England's  foreign 
and  colonial  trade  —  The  opposition  to  emigration  leads  to  objections 
to  colonization  —  The  answer  of  the  imperialists  —  The  transportation 
of  convicts  and  others  —  Governmental  regulation  of  emigration  —  The 
economic  advantages  expected  from  colonization  —  The  colony  as  a 
source  of  supply  —  The  preference  for  the  plantation  type  of  colony. 

The  normal  development  of  every  healthy  and  expand- 
mg  state  forms  a  series  of  alternating  periods  of  internal 
readjustment  and  of  external  growth.  The  former  are 
caused  by  the  ever  changing  social  conditions  within  the 
body  politic  and  the  ensuing  more  or  less  urgent  necessity 
of  bringing  its  institutions  into  harmony  with  the  shifted 
balance  of  power.  The  latter  inevitably  result  from  the 
impact  of  state  upon  state  in  those  competitive  struggles  and 
rivalries,  either  warlike  or  purely  commercial,  which  con- 
stitute international  history.  Rarely  does  a  state  develop  to 
a  marked  extent  simultaneously  in  both  directions,  because 
in  the  stress  of  conflicting  interests  single-minded  concentra- 
tion can  as  a  rule  alone  command  success. 

The  estabhshment  of  the  Commonwealth  in  England, 
following  the  collapse  of  the  Stuart  cause  after  the  execution 

B  I 


2  THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 

of  Charles  I,  gave  the  nation  a  sorely  needed  respite  from  the 
internal  strife  that  for  nearly  two  generations  had  hampered 
its  external  development.    The  decade  that  was  dominated 
by  Cromwell's  vigorous  personality  was  marked  by  the  de- 
votion of  keen  attention  to  commercial  and  colonial  expan- 
sion.   It  was  clearly  recognized  that  the  commercial  suprem- 
acy of  the  Dutch  was  a  formidable  obstacle  in  the  path  of 
England's  economic  development,  and  during  the  Inter- 
regnum considerable  progress  was  made  in  overcoming  this 
impediment.^    The  Navigation  Acts  of   1650  and   1651, 
themselves  based  on  earher  but  less  comprehensive  prece- 
dents, gave  a  great  impetus  to  EngHsh  shipping.    At  the 
same  time,  with  a  view  to  increasing  EngKsh  sea  power  and 
commerce,  considerable  attention  was  devoted  to  colonial 
questions,  and  Jamaica  and  Nova  Scotia  were  added  to  the 
over-sea  dominions.    Beyond  furnishing  valuable  precedents, 
little,  however,  was  actually  accomphshed  either  toward 
creating  an  efficient  administrative  machinery  for  governing 
the  Empire,  or  toward  developing  a  coherent  system  for 
regulating  its  commercial  activities.^    The  position  of  the 
CromweUian  government  was  too  insecure  to  permit  thereof. 
Such  a  system  was  created  after  the  reestablishment  of  the 
monarchy  in  1660,  when  the  fairly  stable  equihbrium  withm 
the  body  poHtic  admitted  the  devotion  of  more  undivided 
and  closer  attention  to  commercial  and  colonial  matters. 


1  See  Beer,  Origins  of  the  British  Colonial  System,  pp.  372  et  seq.,  and 
Beer,  Cromwell's  Policy  in  its  Economic  Aspects,  in  Pol.  Science  Quart., 
Vols.  XVI,  XVII. 

2  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  383  et  seq. 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD  3 

Those  varied  forces,  which  ever  since  the  days  of  EUzabeth,^ 
had  under  untoward  circumstances  been  steadily  working 
for  national  growth  —  for  sea  power,  commerce,  and  colonies 
—  were  then  released  from  the  trammels  hitherto  hampering 
their  free  action. 

The  Restoration  was  an  era  of  marked  expansion;   the 
exuberant  vitality  of  the  age  found  its  chief  outlet  in  this 
direction.     Commercial  wars  were  waged  with  the  sword  or 
by  means  of  hostile  tariJQFs;   foreign  trade  was  prosecuted 
with  unwonted  vigor  by  large  companies ;  in  the  Far  East,  in 
Africa  and  in  America,  new  factories,  trading  settlements 
and  colonies  were  added  to  the  growing  list  of  imperial  out- 
posts.   It  was  a  spontaneous  national  movement,  based  on 
the  demands  of  the  country's  economic  life,  and  in  general 
enHsted  the  sincere  and  energetic  support  of  the  leading 
statesmen  of  the  period  from  King  Charles  down.    However 
notable  was  their  divergence  regarding  internal  questions, 
in  this  respect  there  certainly  was  substantial  unanimity.' 
Despite  his  hedonistic  attitude  toward  Hfe,  his  lazy,  self- 
indulgent  amiabUity,  Charles  II  was  an  efficient  mln  of 
affairs,  with  a  clear  insight  into  the  fundamental  causes  of 
a  nation's  material  prosperity.    HostiHty  to  his  disingenu- 
ous and  tortuous  course  in  rehgious  and  constitutional 
questions,  and  to  the  highly  discreditable  nature  of  his 
diplomatic  relations  with  France,  has  thrust  into  the  ob- 
scure background  the  more  enduring  and  laudable  phases 
of  his  varied  activities.    As  a  discerning  critic  has  weU  said, 

^  England^s  rise  as  a  maritime  power  dates  from  this  period     Cf  Rnt 
Mus.,  Lansdowne  MSS.  691,  f.  61.  ^'         ' 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


"however  much  he  might  disregard  the  sentiments  of  his 
subjects,  he  never  played  fast  and  loose  with  their  material 
interests."  ^  Charles  II  favored  wise  schemes  of  internal 
improvement,  supported  the  commercial  and  colonial  enter- 
prises of  the  day,  and  in  his  general  foreign  policy  sought  to 
overthrow  the  Dutch  commercial  dominion.  "Upon  the 
king's  first  arrival  in  England,''  so  writes  his  confidential 
adviser  Clarendon,  "  he  manifested  a  very  great  desire  to 
improve  the  general  traffick  and  trade  of  the  kingdom,  and 
upon  all  occasions  conferred  with  the  most  active  merchants 
upon  it,  and  ofifered  all  he  could  contribute  to  the  advance- 
ment thereof."  ^  His  poHcy  was  largely  dictated  by  the 
commercial  and  colonial  interests  of  England. 

Immediately  after  the  Restoration,  the  new  government 
was  put  to  the  test,  and  its  decision  was  significant.  In  his 
treaty  of  1656  with  Spain,  Charles  II  had  agreed,  in  the 
event  of  recovering  the  crown  of  his  ancestors,  that  he  would 
return  Jamaica  and  would  aid  Philip  IV  to  reconquer  Portu- 

1  Cunningham,  Growth  of  English  Industry  and  Commerce,  Modem 
Times  (ed.  1903)  II,  p.  194.  Some  weight  should,  however,  be  given  to  the 
following  contemporary  anecdote.  According  to  Bishop  Burnet,  "  Coventry 
told  lord  Essex,  that  there  was  once  a  Plantation  cause  at  the  council  board, 
and  he  was  troubled  to  see  the  king  espouse  the  worst  side :  and  upon  that 
he  went  to  him,  and  told  him  in  his  ear  that  it  was  a  vile  cause  which  he 
was  supporting.  The  king  answered  him,  he  had  got  good  money  for  doing 
it."    Burnet,  History  of  my  own  Time  (ed.  O.  Airy)  II,  p.  in. 

2  Clarendon's  Autobiography  (Oxford,  1827)  II,  p.  231.  In  his  speech 
in  Parliament  of  September  13,  1660,  Clarendon  said  that  Charles  II  "doth 
consider  the  infinite  Importance  the  Improvement  of  Trade  must  be  to 
this  Kingdom ;  and  therefore  His  Majesty  intends  forthwith  to  estabUsh  a 
Council  for  Trade."  Lords  Journal  XI,  p.  175^.  See  also  Clarendon's 
speech  in  December.    Ibid.  p.  23 7* ;  Pari.  Hist.  IV,  p.  170. 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD  5 

< 

gal.  But  when  England  had  acclaimed  him  as  her  lawful 
king,  Charles  II,  with  the  full  support  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons,^ absolutely  refused  to  surrender  Dimkirk  and  Jamaica, 
the  chief  fruits  of  Cromwell's  ambitious  poHcy.^  At  the 
same  time,  largely  also  for  conmiercial  reasons,  steps  were 
taken  to  strengthen  still  further  the  ties  binding  England 
and  Portugal.  In  1 660  was  proposed,  and  two  years  later  was 
consummated,  a  marriage  between  Charles  Hand  Catharine  of 
Braganza,  the  sister  of  the  King  of  Portugal.  By  the  marriage 
treaty,  England  received  Bombay  in  the  East  Indies,  Tangier  in 
northern  Africa,  and  many  important  commercial  concessions. 
These  two  measures  —  the  retention  of  Jamaica  and  the 
Portuguese  marriage  —  together  with  the  refusal  to  comply 
with  France's  demand  for  the  restitution  of  Nova  Scotia,^ 
distinctly  impHed  the  adoption  and  continuation  of  Crom- 
well's maritime  pohcy.*  Such  a  course  was  bound  to  bring 
England  again  into  conflict  with  the  Dutch,  then  the 
dominant  maritime  and  commercial  nation.  The  Dutch, 
said  Shaftesbury  in  1673,  are  "England's  eternal  enemy, 
both  by  interest  and  inclination."  ^    The  intensity  of  this 


^  Com.  Journal  VIII,  p.  163. 

2  In  his  diary,  Evelyn  reports  that  on  September  27,  1660,  Charles 
"received  the  merchants*  addresses  in  his  closet,  giving  them  assurances 
of  his  persistmg  to  keep  Jamaica."  In  answer  to  Spain's  demand  for  its 
restitution  and  that  of  Dunkurk,  the  Privy  CouncU  on  December  6,  1660, 
wrote  to  the  Spanish  Ambassador  that  Charles  II  did  not  find  himself 
obhged  "  de  rendre  ces  deux  places  de  la  Jamajque  et  Dunquerque."  Evelvn, 
Sept.  27,  1660 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  302. 

'  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  225,  226,  240-243,  322,  323. 

*  Cf.  Seeley,  Growth  of  British  PoHcy  II,  pp.  118,  128. 

«  Pari.  Hist.  IV,  p.  506. 


6  THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 

opposition  of  vital  interests  caused  the  two  Dutch  wars  of 
the  reign,  which  paved  the  way  for  England's  ultimate  com- 
mercial supremacy.    The  most  prominent  point  of  con- 
tention among  others  of  equal,  if  not  greater,  fundamental 
importance,  concerned   England's  right   to  engage  in  the 
African  slave-trade,  which  the  Dutch  vigorously  and  even 
violently  denied.    These  slaves  were  needed  to  develop  the 
sugar  plantations  in  the  West  Indies,  and  thus  this  trade 
was  an  integral  part  of  the  colonial  movement.^    Charles  II 
had  personally  invested  in  this  African  enterprise,^  and  so 
also  had  several  other  members  of  the  royal  family,  con- 
spicuously his  cousin.  Prince  Rupert,  and  his  brother,  the 
future  James  II,  then  Duke  of  York.    Rupert,  moreover, 
was  the  founder  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  for  a 
number  of  years  directed  its  activities.^    The  future  James 
II  had  also  invested  in  this  undertaking  and  took  a  personal 
part  in  its  management.    He  was  likewise  a  stockholder 
in  the  East  India  Company  and  in  the  Royal  African  Com- 
pany.*   In  addition  to  his  connection  with  these  chartered 

1  In  1695,  a  prominent  Bristol  merchant  stated  that  the  West  Indian 
and  African  trades  were  in  his  estimation  "the  most  profitable  of  any  we 
drive,  and  (I)  do  joyn  them  together  because  of  their  dependance  on  each 
other."  John  Gary,  An  Essay  on  the  State  of  England  (Bristol,  1695), 
p.  65. 

2  For  his  investment  in  the  first  African  company  of  his  reign,  see  PubHc 
Record  Office,  Declared  Accounts:  Audit  Office,  Bundle  3,  RoU  i-  Pipe 
Office,  Roll  6. 

^  C.  P.  Lucas,  Canada  (Part  I,  New  France),  pp.  185,  186 ;  W.  R.  Scott, 
Joint-Stock  Companies  to  1720  II,  pp.  228,  229;  Beckles  Willson,  The 
Great  Company;  A.  C.  Laut,  The  Conquest  of  the  Great  Northwest. 

*  Before  his  accession  to  the  throne,  James  had  £3000  stock  in  the  East 
India  Co.,  £3000  stock  in  the  Royal  African  Co.,  and  £300  stock  in  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Co.    Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  15,896,  p.  55. 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD  7 

companies,  James  was  energetically  engaged  in  developing  his 
proprietary  dominion  of  New  York,  on  which  he  spent  no 
inconsiderable  sums  of  money,  from  which,  as  all  previous 
experience  in  such  enterprises  had  amply  manifested,  no 
adequate  return  could  reasonably  be  anticipated  except  in 
the  more  or  less  distant  future.  Moreover,  James's  sincere 
interest  in  the  concerns  of  the  navy  constitutes  one  of  the 
few  bright  spots  in  his  checkered  career.^ 

The  chief  statesmen  of  the  era  were  likewise  keenly  ahve 
to  the  importance  of  colonial  and  commercial  expansion. 
Administrative  and  executive  authority  centred  in  the 
Privy  Council,  which  was  composed  both  of  members  of  the 
old  CromweUian  group  and  of  faithful  adherents  of  Charles 
during  his  wanderings  on  the  continent.  The  former, 
conspicuously  prominent  among  them  Shaftesbury,  were 
naturally  in  favor  of  this  movement.  Shaftesbury  was  a 
vigorous  opponent  of  the  Dutch  as  the  dominant  commercial 
nation ;  he  was  the  leading  spirit  in  the  settlement  of  the 
CaroHnas,  and  in  1672  was  placed  at  the  head  of  the  Council 
of  Trade  and  Foreign  Plantations,  which  directed  the 
colonial  pohcy  of  the  government.  But  the  royahst  section 
of  the  Privy  Council  was,  at  least  in  this  respect,  fully  in 
accord  with  the  old  CromweUians.  During  their  decade  of 
exile,  they  had  suffered  much  from  the  success  of  Crom- 
well's vigorous,  if  not  whoUy  scrupulous,  poUcy,  which  had 

» In  his  speech  of  May  30,  1685,  in  the  House  of  Lords,  asking  for  addi- 
tional  revenue,  James  said :  "But,  above  aU,  I  must  recommend  to  you  the 
care  of  the  Navy,  the  strength  and  glory  of  this  Nation ;  that  you  wiU  put 
It  mto  such  a  condition,  as  may  make  us  considered  and  respected  abroad.'^ 
<arey,  Debates,  1667-1694,  VHI,  pp.  347,  348. 


8 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


effectively  deterred  the  continental  powers  from  active 
aid  in  support  of  their  master.  The  lesson  was  one  not  to 
be  forgotten,  especially  by  so  intelligent  a  man  as  was  the 
chief  of  these  cavaHer  statesmen,  Edward  Hyde,  Earl  of 
Clarendon.  Though  cautiqus  in  his  foreign  poHcy,^  he  fully 
appreciated  the  value  of  the  colonies,  and  was  actively 
interested  in  their  development  and  administration.  In 
his  autobiography  Clarendon  writes  that,  both  before  and 
after  the  Restoration,  "he  had  used  all  the  endeavours  he 
could  to  prepare  and  dispose  the  king  to  a  great  esteem  of 
his  plantations,  and  to  encourage  the  improvement  of  them 
by  all  the  ways  that  could  reasonably  be  proposed  to  him."  ^ 
Other  leading  statesmen  of  the  day,  such  as  Henry  Bennet, 
Earl  of  ArHngton,  Hkewise  devoted  great  attention  to  these 
questions,  and  in  addition  there  was  a  group  of  minor  states- 

iln  ParKament,  Clarendon  supported  the  Portuguese  marriage  even 
though  Spain  threatened  war,  saying  that  "whosoever  is  against  the  Match 
with  Portugal  is  for  thedeUveryof  Dunkirk  and  Jamaica."  Pari.  Hist.  IV, 
pp.  i8i  et  seq.  He  was,  however,  anxious  to  avoid  war  with  the  Dutch. 
Bodleian,  Clarendon  MSS.  85,  f.  430- 

2  Clarendon's  Autobiography  (Oxford,  1827)  III,  p.  407.  In  a  speech 
in  ParHament  in  1662,  Clarendon  said :  "  How  our  neighbours  and  our  rivals, 
who  court  one  and  the  same  mistress,  trade  and  commerce,  with  all  the 
world,  are  advanced  in  shipping,  power,  and  an  immoderate  desire  to  en- 
gross the  whole  traffic  of  the  universe,  is  notorious  enough."  Consequently, 
he  said,  England  must  spend  large  sums  on  the  army  and  navy ;  those  who 
murmur  at  the  expense  of  defending  Dunkirk  and  the  other  new  acquisi- 
tions, "which  ought  to  be  looked  upon  as  jewels  of  an  immense  magnitude 
in  the  royal  diadem,  do  not  enough  remember  what  we  have  lost  by  Dim- 
kirk,  and  should  always  do  if  it  were  in  an  enemy's  hands ;  nor  dxily  con- 
sider the  vast  advantages  those  other  dominions  are  like,  by  God's  blessing, 
in  short  time,  to  bring  to  the  trade,  navigation,  wealth,  and  honour  of  the 
king  and  kingdom."    Pari.  Hist.  IV,  p.  250. 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD  9 

men,  politicians,  and  officials  whose  influence  was  most 
important.  Prominent  among  them  was  Arlington's  suc- 
cessor as  Secretary  of  State,  Sir  Joseph  Williamson,  whose 
carefully  compiled  note-books  testify  to  his  methodical 
study  and  detailed  knowledge  of  colonial  questions.^  But 
of  these  men  the  most  influential  by  far  was  Sir  George 
Downing,  trained  in  New  England,  a  nephew  of  the  elder 
John  Winthrop  and  the  second  on  the  Hst  of  Harvard's 
subsequent  long  roll  of  graduates.  During  his  youth  he 
had  left  Massachusetts  for  the  West  Indies,^  and  shortly 
afterwards  appeared  in  England.  Under  Cromwell,  he  filled 
satisfactorily  several  responsible  administrative  and  financial 
positions,  and  at  the  time  of  the  Restoration  was  England's 
representative  at  the  Hague.  Abandoning  his  late  associates, 
he  succeeded  in  ingratiating  himself  with  Charles  II  and 
was  continued  in  his  post  in  Holland.  As  a  diplomat,  he 
strenuously  supported  the  English  merchants  in  their 
acrimonious  disputes  with  the  Dutch,  and  was  a  strong  ad- 
vocate of  war  as  the  best  way  out  of  the  existing  impasse. 
In  addition  to  his  diplomatic  work.  Downing  was  very  active 
in  the  fields  of  administration  and  legislation.  From  1667 
on,  under  his  supervision  as  Secretary  to  the  Commissioners, 
"the  routine  of  Treasury  business  and  Treasury  book- 
keeping was  systematized  and  regulated  in  a  remarkably 
thorough  and  able  manner."  ^    Later,  as  one  of  the  Com- 


^  Sir  Robert  Southwell,  however,  said  in  1680  that  Williamson  'was  not 
very  attentive  to  the  business  of  the  Plantations.'    C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  469. 

2  Winthrop  Papers  I,  p.  536. 

3  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1660-1667,  p.  xliii. 


lO 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL   SYSTEM 


missioners  of  the  Customs,  he  was  most  influential  in  shap- 
ing the  details  of  colonial  policy  and  the  actual  course  of 
administration.  But  it  was  in  legislation  that  his  influence 
on  the  colonies  was  most  potent.  In  every  one  of  that 
important  series  of  statutes  regulating  colonial  trade,  his 
hand  was  apparently  the  one  that  guided  Parliament.^ 

Downing's  personal  character,  in  so  far  as  he  was  a  time- 
server  and  had  betrayed  his  former  associates,  the  regicide 
refugees  in  Holland,^  has  been  probably  only  too  justly  im- 
pugned, but  there  can  be  no  question  of  his  great  ability  and 
efficiency  as  a  pubHc  servant.^  The  following  excerpt  from  a 
letter  written  by  him  in  1663  to  Clarendon  embodies  the 
economic  creed  of  the  day.  "Be  the  Governm'  what  it 
will,"  he  held,  "trade  may  be  had  if  they  give  themselves 
to  Encourage  it,  But  it  is  not  to  be  had  in  a  day,  nor  by  one 

^  The  four  chief  laws  affecting  the  colonies  were  12  Ch.  II,  c.  18,  15  Ch.  II, 
c.  7,  22  and  23  Ch.  II,  c.  26,  and  25  Ch.  II,  c.  7.  For  Downing*s  activity  in 
connection  with  the  Navigation  Act  of  1660,  see  Com.  Journal  VIII,  pp. 
120,  129,  142,  151,  153.  It  was  apparently  due  to  him  that  the  celebrated 
"enimierated  commodities"  clause  was  added  to  the  statute.  The  "Staple 
Act"  of  1663  was  also  seemingly  drafted  by  him.  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS. 
22,920,  ff.  II,  12.  Downing  was  also  prominent  in  the  passage  of  the  Acts 
of  1671  and  1673.  Com.  Journal  IX,  pp.  224,  237,  238,  252,  273,  275. 
On  Downing's  influence  see  also  post,  passim. 

2  In  this  connection  Pepys  said  that  Downing  had  acted  "like  a  perfidi- 
ous rogue,"  and  that  "all  the  world  takes  notice  of  him  for  a  most  imgrateful 
villaine  for  his  pains."  Pepys,  March  12  and  17, 1662.  On  this  see  R.  C.  H. 
CatteraU,  Sir  George  Downing  and  the  Regicides,  in  Am.  Hist.  Rev.  XVII. 

3  When  Pepys  heard  of  Downing's  appointment  as  Secretary  to  the 
Treasury,  he  wrote:  "I  think  in  my  conscience  they  have  done  a  great 
thing  in  it ;  for  he  is  active  and  a  man  of  business,  and  values  himself  upon 
having  things  do  well  under  his  hand ;  so  that  I  am  mightily  pleased  in  their 
choice."     Pepys,  May  27,  1667. 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD  1 1 

good  act,  but  to  be  pursued  from  Step  to  Step."  ^  In  striv- 
ing for  this  end.  Downing  displayed  marked  inteUectual 
consistency  and  great  constructive  ability.  To  him,  far  more 
than  to  any  other  individual,  is  due  the  commercial  system 
which  was  elaborated  during  the  Restoration  era  for  the 
regulation  of  the  Empire's  trade. 

Finally,  mention  should  be  made  of  another  official, 
William  Blathwayt,  who  for  thirty  years  was  closely  identi- 
fied with  colonial  affairs.  His  influence  was,  however,  by 
no  means  so  fundamental  as  was  that  of  Downing.  Blath- 
wayt had  considerably  less  constructive  ability  and  was 
active  mainly  in  administration,  while  Downing  powerfully 
influenced  the  underlying  policy.  By  his  industry  and 
ability  —  Blathwayt  was  "very  dexterous  in  business,  "  re- 
cords the  diarist  Evelyn  ^  —  he  had  risen  from  very  moder- 
ate circumstances,^  and  in  the  course  of  time  occupied  simul- 
taneously a  number  of  lucrative  posts.  Among  these  was 
that  of  Auditor  General  of  the  colonies,  which  brought  imder 
his  supervision  the  various  colonial  financial  systems.  Then, 
as  Secretary  to  the  Lords  of  Trade,  he  virtually  created  the 
routine  administrative  machinery  of  the  colonial  office  in 
London,  which  was  continued  after  1696  by  the  Board  of 
Trade,  of  which  he  was  at  the  outset  a  prominent  member. 

In  addition  to  these  statesmen,  politicians,  and  officials, 
there  was  a  large  body  of  courtiers,  noblemen,  merchants,  and 

*  Hague,  Dec.  25,  1663,  Downing  to  Clarendon.  Bodleian,  Clarendon 
MSS.  107,  f.  53b. 

2  Evel)^!,  June  18,  1687. 

*  He  was  related  to  the  Povey  famfly,  a  number  of  whom  held  minor 
colonial  positions. 


12 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


traders  who,  partly  for  personal  and  partly  for  patriotic 
reasons,  were  instrumental  in  furthering  this  movement  of 
expansion.  Some  devoted  their  attention  to  private  com- 
merce, others  to  the  development  of  the  great  trading  com- 
panies— preeminently  those  which  had  secured  monopolies 
of  the  commerce  with  Africa  and  the  East  Indies.  Closely 
affiliated  with  this  body  of  men,  and  in  many  cases  overlap- 
ping, was  a  group  engaged  in  new  colonial  enterprises,  such 
as  the  Carolinas  and  Jerseys,  and  in  developing  the  resources 
of  the  existing  plantations.  The  governing  classes,  com- 
posed mainly  of  the  landed  gentry,  were  working  in  close 
cooperation  with  these  groups  to  further  the  commercial 
and  colonial  expansion  of  England.  The  ensuing  national 
growth  was  on  a  conspicuously  rapid  scale. 

It  was  fully  realized  at  the  time  that  England's  develop- 
ment depended  upon  the  possession  of  adequate  naval 
strength,  and  that  sea  power  was  the  fundamental  factor 
upon  which  must  be  based  the  future  commercial  and  colonial 
empire,  of  which  the  statesmen  of  the  day  had  some  in- 
evitably indistinct,  but  prescient,  visions.  In  his  speech  on 
the  adjournment  of  Parliament  in  September  of  1660,  the 
Speaker  said  that  the  Act  of  Navigation  "will  enable  your 
majesty  to  give  the  law  to  foreign  princes  abroad  as  your 
royal  predecessors  have  done  before  you :  and  it  is  the  only 
way  to  enlarge  your  majesty's  dominions  all  over  the  world ; 
for  so  long  as  your  majesty  is  master  at  sea  your  merchants 
will  be  welcome  wherever  they  come ;  and  that  is  the  easiest 
way  of  conquering."^    The  Restoration  government  zeal- 

1  Pari.  Hist.  IV,  p.  120. 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD  13 

ously  pursued  this  policy  of  fostering  the  development  of  sea 
power  by  measures  discriminating  against  aHen  shipping. 
Despite  some  unavoidable  concomitant  disadvantages,  the 
actual  end  attained  coincided  with  the  aims  of  those  enact- 
ing these  measures.  To  this  notable  extent  the  poHcy  was 
unquestionably  completely  successful.  Sir  Josiah  ChHd,  one 
of  the  most  intelligent  men  of  affairs  of  the  time,  asserted 
that  without  the  Navigation  Act  "we  had  not  been  Owners 
of  one  half  of  the  Shiping,  nor  Trade,  nor  employed  one 
half  of  the  Sea-men  which  we  do  at  present."  ^  Under  the 
protection  of  this  measure  the  EngHsh  mercantUe  marine 
approximately  doubled  itself  between  1660  and  1688.2  ^he 
royal  navy  also,  but  to  a  somewhat  less  noteworthy  degree, 
showed  considerable  advance.^ 
This  great  mcrease  in  shipping  naturally  implied  a  cor- 

1  Child,  A  New  Discourse  of  Trade  (London,  1693),  p.  91-  The  Naviga- 
tion Act  has  been  the  subject  of  controversy  from  the  day  of  its  enactment 
until  the  present  tune.  Later  critics,  imder  the  influence  of  the  free  trade 
doctrine,  have  contended  that  the  development  of  the  English  mercantile 
marine  took  place  in  spite  of  the  law,  or  that  it  was  at  the  expense  of  other 
interests  equally,  or  possibly  even  more,  important.  Such  criticism  is  largely 
academic  ;  it  is  ineffective  and  unconvincing,  because  it  rests  on  a  series  of 
hypotheses  that  cannot  be  verified.  The  crucial  point  in  judging  the  success 
of  the  policy  is  that  certain  means  were  adopted  to  attain  a  definite  end 
and  that  the  goal  in  view  was  actually  reached. 

2  "As  to  our  Stock  in  Shipping,  old  and  experienc'd  Merchants  do 
all  agree,  that  we  had  in  1688,  near  double  the  Tonnage  of  Trading 
Ships,  to  what  we  had  Anno  1666."  Charles  Davenant,  Discourses  on 
the  PubHc  Revenue  and  on  the  Trade  of  England  (London,  1698)  II, 
p.  29. 

'  In  1660  the  tonnage  of  the  navy  was  62,594,  in  1688  it  was  101,032. 
Davenant,  op.  cit.  II,  p.  29.  The  great  increase  in  the  English  navy  dated 
from  the  period  of  the  French  wars. 


m 


14 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


THE  COLONLVL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD 


15 


responding  expansion  in  England's  foreign  commerce.* 
Shortly  after  the  Restoration,  London's  foreign  trade 
amoimted  to  about  six  millions  sterling,  of  which  two- 
thirds  were  unports.^  On  this  basis,  the  total  foreign  com- 
merce of  England  was  somewhat  over  eight  and  a  quarter 
millions.^  By  the  end  of  the  century  this  figure  had  risen 
to  nearly  twelve  and  a  half  millions,  and  it  was  especially 
gratifying  to  the  mercantilist  mind  that  virtually  this  entire 
increase  was  in  the  exports.  These  had  risen  from  about 
two  and  three-quarters  to  nearly  seven  millions.* 

1  Ships  cleared  outwards  from  England : 


1663  (about) 
1688  .  .  . 
1697  .  .  . 
1700  (about) 


English  Tonnage 


95,266 

190,533 
144,264 

273,693 


Foreign  Tonnage 


47,634 

95,267 

100,524 

43,635 


Total  Tonnage 


142,900 
285,800 
244,788 
317,328 


Cunningham,  op.  cit.  II,  p.  932,  appendix  F.    See  also  the  statistics  in 
House  of  Lords  MSS.  (1695-1697)  II,  pp.  421,  422. 


Exports 

Imports 

I662-I663    

I668-I669  

£2,022,812 
£2,063,274 

£4,016,019 
£4,196,139 

C.  O.  388/8,  E  31 ;  Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  2902,  f.  118.  Misselden 
estimated  that  in  1613  England's  exports  were  £2,090,640  and  the  imports 
£2,141,151.  The  corresponding  figures  for  1622,  as  estimated  by  him,  were 
£1,944,264  and  £2,519,315.  Misselden,  The  Circle  of  Commerce  (London, 
1623),  pp.  120,  121,  127-129. 

'C/.  W.  R.  Scott,  Joint-Stock  Companies  to  1720  I,  p.  266. 

*  The  exports  from  England  for  the  4  years  3  months  from  Sept.  29,  1697, 
to  Christmas,  1701,  were  £29,597,387.     The  total  imports  for  the  same 


In  this  growing  commerce,  the  trade  with  the  American 
plantations  —  the  colonial  trade  proper  —  was  assuming  an 
ever-increasing  importance.  During  the  first  decade  of  the 
Restoration,  it  amounted  to  only  about  one-tenth  of  the 
whole.^  Twenty  years  later  this  trade  had  increased  from 
roughly  £8cx),ooo  to  £1,300,000,^  and  towards  the  end  of 
the  century  it  had  considerably  more  than  doubled  itself. 
It  then  amounted  to  £1,750,000  and  constituted  one-seventh 
of  England's  total  foreign  commerce.^ 

period  were  £23,597,387.  The  annual  averages  were:  exports  £6,964,091, 
imports  £5,486,941.  C.  O.  388/17,  N  239.  For  the  detailed  statistics  of 
these  years,  see  House  of  Lords  MSS.  (1699-1702)  IV,  pp.  434,  435 ;  Whit- 
worth,  State  of  the  Trade  of  England  (London,  1776),  Part  I,  pp.  1-6. 

^  Exports  from  London 


Total 

To  THF.  Colonies 

I662-I663   

I668-I669  

£2,022,812 
£2,063,274 

£105,910 
£107,791 

Imports  estto  London 

Total 

From  the  Colonies 

1662-1663   

1668-1669   ....... 

£4,016,019 
£4,196,139 

£484,641 
£605,574 

C.  O.  388/8,  E  31 ;  Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  2902,  f.  118. 

2  For  the  six  years  from  1683  to  1688,  the  average  exports  to  the  American 
colonies  were  £350,000,  and  the  imports  thence,  including  Newfoundland, 
were  £950,000.    Davenant,  op.  cit.  II,  p.  218. 

'  The  average  annual  exports  from  England  for  the  4  years  3  months  from 
Sept.  29,  1697,  to  Christmas,  1701,  were  £6,964,091,  of  which  £753,404  went 
to  the  colonies,  including  therein  Newfoundland.  As  regards  imports,  the 
correspondmg  figures  were  £5,486,941  and  £1,013,086.    For  further  details, 


i6 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


These  proportions  are  in  themselves  not  large,  but  the 
rate  of  increase  was  a  disproportionately  striking  one;  and, 
moreover,  these  bare  figures  by  no  means  indicate  the  in- 
trinsic importance  to  England  of  this  branch  of  her  com- 
merce. The  men  of  the  day  argued  in  a  circle  of  sea  power, 
commerce,  and  colonies.  Sea  power  enabled  England  to  ex- 
pand and  to  protect  her  foreign  trade,  while  this  increased 
commerce,  in  turn,  augmented  her  naval  strength.^  The 
argmnent  in  respect  to  colonies  ran  in  the  same  unending 
strain,  and  underlying  both  was  the  fundamental  idea  that 
sea  power  was  the  essential  factor.  Now,  in  proportion  to  its 
volume,  the  colonial  trade  employed  far  more  English  ship- 
ping than  did  England's  commerce  with  foreign  countries. 
In  the  first  place,  a  considerable  proportion  of  this  foreign 
commerce  was  conveyed  in  ahen  shipping,^  while  such  vessels 
were  by  the  Navigation  Act  totally  excluded  from  the  colonial 
trade.     Furthermore,  not  only  were  the  colonial  products  as 

see  House  of  Lords  MSS.  (1699-1702)  IV,  pp.  434,  435;  Whitworth,  op, 
cit.  Part  I,  pp.  1-6. 

^  Early  in  the  following  century,  Lord  Haversham,  in  a  speech  before  the 
House  of  Lords,  well  expressed  the  current  view.  "Your  Fleet  and  your 
Trade,"  he  said,  "have  so  near  a  relation,  and  such  mutual  influence  upon 
each  other,  they  cannot  well  be  separated ;  your  trade  is  the  mother  and 
nurse  of  your  seamen ;  your  seamen  are  the  Ufe  of  your  fleet,  and  your 
fleet  is  the  security  and  protection  of  your  trade,  and  both  together  are  the 
wealth,  strength,  security  and  glory  of  Britain."  Pari.  Hist.  VI,  p.  598. 
A  writer  of  earHer  date  put  the  question  thus:  "The  undoubted  Interest 
of  England  is  Trade,  since  it  is  that  only  which  can  make  us  either  Rich  or 
Safe;  for  without  a  powerful  Navy,  we  should  be  a  Prey  to  our  Neighbours, 
and  without  Trade,  we  could  neither  have  Sea-Men  nor  Ships. ^'  A  Letter 
to  Sir  Thomas  Osborn  (London,  1672),  p.  13. 

*  See  ante,  p.  14,  note  i. 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD 


17 


a  rule  bulky  in  relation  to  their  first  cost,*  but  in  addition  a 
vessel  was  usually  able  to  make  only  one  voyage  a  year  to 
America,  while  two,  three,  and  even  more  could  be  made  from 
England  to  the  European  continental  countries.  Thus  the 
colonial  trade  gave  employment  to  far  more  shipping  than  its 
mere  volume  indicated.^  In  1678,  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Customs  reported  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  that  "the  Plantacon 
trade  is  one  of  the  greatest  Nurseries  of  the  Shipping  and 
Seamen  of  this  Kingdome,  and  one  of  the  greatest  branches 
of  its  Trade."  ^  Similarly,  it  was  estimated  in  a  memorial 
of  the  same  year  that  "  these  Plantations,  Newcastle  Trade 
and  the  Fishery,  make  f  of  all  the  Seamen  in  y^  Nation."  * 

1  The  rate  of  freight  on  tobacco  from  Virginia  to  England  fluctuated 
greatly,  and  was  naturally  considerably  higher  in  time  of  war  than  during 
peace.  In  the  period  under  discussion  the  extreme  limits  seem  to  have 
been  £5  55.  and  £16  a  ton.  Bruce,  Economic  History  of  Virginia  I,  pp. 
450-452.  In  a  rough  way,  and  naturally  inversely,  these  amounts  about 
equalled  the  fluctuatmg  value  in  Virginia  of  the  tobacco  to  be  transported. 
The  price  of  tobacco  ranged  approximately  from  \d.  to  2d.  a  pound.  In 
167 1,  it  was  calculated  that  the  net  proceeds  received  by  the  planter  from 
80  cwt.  of  raw  sugar  was  £44  7^.,  while  the  freight  to  England  thereon 
amounted  to  £18   85.     C.  O.  31/2  ff.  54  et  seq. 

2  During  the  year  ending  Sept.  29,  1677,  there  came  to  London  from  the 
English  West  Indies  and  the  Bermudas  alone  155  ships  of  15,845  total 
tonnage.  During  the  same  year,  the  entries  from  London  outwards  to 
these  colonies  were  80  ships  of  11,365  total  tonnage.  C.  0. 1/42, 6oi,  6oii ; 
C.  O.  324/4,  ff.  58,  59.  Cf.  England's  Guide  to  Industry  (London,  1683), 
preface. 

'  C.  0.  1/42,  60;  C.  O.  324/4,  ff.  56-58. 

*  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  574.  Sir  Josiah  Child  also  pointed 
out  that  the  trade  of  the  English  colonies  in  America  was  of  great  bulk  and 
employed  as  much  shipping  as  most  of  the  trades  of  England.  Child,  A 
New  Discourse  of  Trade  (London,  1693),  p.  164.  Sunilarly,  John  Pollexfen 
stated  that  the  colonial  trade  ought  to  be  encouraged  since  it  employed  so 
c 


i8 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Thus  the  colonial  trade  was  becoming  of  ever-increasing 
importance  to  the  national  development  of  England;  its 
value  was  fully  recognized,  and  even  over-emphasized,  at 
the  time  by  both  EngHshmen^  and  foreigners.^  The  title 
of  a  contemporary  pamphlet,  "Plantation  Work,  the  Work 
of  this  Generation,"  ^  is  of  considerable  significance.  The 
territorial  acquisitions  in  America  were,  however,  not  prized 
as  possible  homes  for  an  overflowing  population  in  England, 
but  virtually  solely  as  feeders  for  English  commerce.  In 
the  eyes  of  the  English  government,  colonial  expansion  was 
a  subordinate,  though  vital,  part  of  the  larger  movement  of 
commercial  progress.  This  was  a  striking  characteristic 
of  Restoration  thought,  and  naturally  greatly  influenced 

many  ships  and  seamen,  for  this  trade  and  that  to  Newcastle  have  become 
"the  chief  support  of  our  Navigation,  and  Nursery  for  Seamen."  Pollex- 
fen,  A  Discourse  of  Trade,  Coyn  and  Paper  Credit  (London,  1697),  p.  86. 
In  the  first  decade  of  the  following  century,  a  writer,  with  a  marked  tendency 
to  exaggeration,  even  estimated  that  nearly  two-thirds  of  English  shipping 
was  employed  in  the  colonial  trade.  Neh.  Grew,  The  Meanes  of  a  most 
Ample  Encrease  of  the  Wealth  and  Strength  of  England,  in  Brit.  Mus., 
Lansdowne  MSS.  691,  f.  61^. 

1  Thus  one  writer,  after  carefully  analyzing  the  plantation  trade,  claimed 
that  the  colonies  "doe  not  more  if  soe  much  depend  upon  the  interest  of 
England,  as  the  interest  of  England  doth  depend  upon  them."  Bodleian, 
RawUnson  MSS.  A  478,  f.  48. 

2  In  167 1,  the  Venetian  Ambassador  in  England,  Pietro  Mocenigo, 
wrote  to  his  government:  "Anco  il  negozio  dell'  America  e  in  liberta  di 
ogni  suddito  inglese  a  praticarlo,  quale  ogni  giorno  si  avanza  e  si  rende  piu 
florido,  accresciutasi  la  coltura  nella  Giammaica,  popolata  I'isole  di  Bar- 
bada  e  di  San  Cristofero,  e  introdotta  I'industria  nelle  provincie  della  Nuova 
AngUa,  Virginia  e  Florida.  Tale  e  il  traffico  dell'  Inghilterra  dilatato  per 
tutto  il  mondo."  Le  Relazioni  degU  Staci  Europei,  Serie  IV,  Inghilterra 
(Venezia,  1863),  p.  449. 

»  By  W.  L.,  pubhshed  in  London,  1682.    See  especially  pp.  6-8. 


THE   COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD 


19 


colonial  policy.    When  England  first  embarked  on   this 
career  of  expansion,  under  Elizabeth  and  James  I,  the 
prevailing  view  was  radically  different.^    It  was  then  gen- 
erally thought  that  England  was  over-populated,  and  conse- 
quently colonization  was  advocated  as  a  means  for  reHeving 
this  congestion.    It  was,  however,  gradually  realized  that 
this  diagnosis  was  incorrect,  and  that  emigration  not  only 
was  no  remedy  for  pauperism  and  its  attendant  evils,  but 
might  be  a  drain  on  the  national  strength.     England's  own 
resources  were  by  no  means  fully  developed,  and  the  great 
progress  in  industry  and  commerce  during  the  Restoration 
era  afforded  employment  to  increasing  numbers.     Further- 
more, the  necessity  for  a  large  population  was  emphasized 
by  the  international  rivalries  of  the  day.    As  these  became 
more  acute,  and  especially  when  it  was  reaHzed   that  a 
struggle  with  France,  whose  population  greatly  exceeded 
that  of  England,  was  inevitable,  a  loss  in  inhabitants  was 
regarded  with  considerable  alarm  and  trepidation.     Hence, 
from  about  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century  on,  when 
England  became  engaged  in  a  bitter  contest  with  HoUand, 
until  the  close  of  the  period  of  the  French  wars,  emigration 
was  regarded  as  an  inherently  pernicious  phenomenon,  as 
a  positive  evil,  which  should  be  tolerated  only  in  return  for 
countervaiUng  and  greater  advantages  to  be  derived  from 
the  colonies.    A  private  individual,   Uke  William  Penn, 
primarily  interested  in  the  settlement  of  his  own  vast  con- 
cession, might  claim  that  "colonies  are  the  Seeds  of  Nations, 
begun  and  nourished  by '  the  Care  of  wise  and  populous 

^  Beer,  Origins,  Chapter  II. 


20 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Countries;  as  conceiving  them  best  for  the  Increase  of 
humane  Stock,  and  beneficial  for  Commerce  " ;  ^  but  this 
by  no  means  represented  the  attitude  and  purpose  of  the 
nation  and  its  government.  At  this  time  England  did  not 
regard  herself  as  the  actual  or  prospective  "Mother  of 
Nations. "  That  was  a  part  at  first  forced  upon  her  by  the 
inexorable  facts  of  colonial  development,  and  assumed 
voluntarily  only  in  the  nineteenth  century,  when  the  com- 
pleted industrial  revolution  had  made  necessary  the  posses- 
sion both  of  over-sea  homes  for  her  swarming  multitudes  and 
of  expanding  markets  for  her  busy  factories.  Diametrically 
opposed  was  the  Restoration  attitude. 

According  to  the  view  then  prevaiHng,  the  population  of 
England  was  not  only  not  redundant,  but  by  no  means  equal 
to  its  productive  capacity.  People  were  wealth,^  ran  the 
argument,  and  hence  it  was  even  urged  that  immigration  into 
England  should  be  encouraged.^  The  Earl  of  Shaftesbury 
gave  expression  to  these  current  views  in  a  memorial  on  the 
decay  of  lands,  rents,  and  trade,  which  he  addressed  to 


1  William  Penn,  The  Benefit  of  Plantations,  or  Colonies,  in  Select  Tracts 
relating  to  Colonies,  p.  26 ;  A.  C.  Myers,  Narratives  of  Early  Pennsylvania 
etc.,  p.  202. 

*  "All  Kingdoms  or  Governments  are  Strong  or  Weak,  Rich  or  Poor, 
according  to  the  Plenty  or  Paucity  of  the  People  of  that  Government." 
The  Irregular  and  Disorderly  State  of  the  Plantation-Trade  (about  1694), 
in  Am.  Hist.  Assoc.  Report,  1892,  p.  37. 

2  Samuel  Fortrey,  England's  Interest  and  Improvement  (Cambridge, 
1663),  pp.  4-13.  Among  the  fundamental  characteristics  of  mercantilism 
was  "the  exaggerated  importance  attached  to  the  nxmiber  of  population 
and  its  density."  Ugo  Rabbeno,  The  American  Commercial  Policy  (Lon- 
don, 1895),  p.  27. 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD 


21 


Charles  II  in  about  1672.^  "I  Take  it  for  granted,"  he  said, 
"That  the  Strength  &  glory,  of  yo'  Ma'*^  and  the  wealth  of 
yo^  Kingdoms,  depends  not  Soe  much  on  anything,  on  this 
Side  of  heauven,  as  on  the  multitude  of  yo"^  Subjects,  by  whose 
mouths  &  backes,  the  fruits  &  Commoditys  of  yo'  Lands 
may  haue  a  liberall  Consumption."  Abundant  people,  he 
added,  are  necessary  for  military  purposes,  and  to  increase  the 
public  revenue  and  the  national  manufactures,  but  of  late 
England's  population  has  fallen  off  by  reason  of  the  plague, 
wars,  and  emigration  to  America,  and  consequently  land  has 
decreased  in  value,  while  the  cost  of  manufacturing  has 
risen.  As  a  remedy,  he  proposed,  to  encourage  immigra- 
tion, and  to  "  Stopp  the  draine,  that  carrys  ^way  the  Natiues 
from  us."  This  suggestion  was  adopted  by  the  government, 
which  encouraged  the  immigration  into  England  of  foreign 
Protestants,^  especially  of  French  Huguenots.  The  settle- 
ment of  these  refugees  from  Louis  XIV's  religious  persecu- 
tion in  London  and  elsewhere  was  facilitated  by  grants 
from  the  English  government,  which  welcomed  them  as  a 
valuable  addition  to  the  industrial  population.^  The 
change  in  opinion  regarding  this  question  inevitably  in- 
volved a  fresh  consideration  and  a  revised  estimate  of  the 
economic  value  of  colonies. 

One  of  the  ablest  of  the  public  men  of  the  Restoration 
era,*  Sir  WiUiam  Coventry,  in  his  "Essay  concerning  the 


^  Shaftesbury  MSS.,  Section  X,  in  PubHc  Record  Office. 
2  Cf.  S.  P.  Dom.  Chas.  II,  Entry  Book  36,  ff.  327,  328. 
'  Cunningham,  op.  cit.  I,  pp.  327-331. 
^  Lodge,  England,  1660-1702,  pp.  66,  67. 


"f 


22 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


THE  COLONLVL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD 


23 


Decay  of  Rents  and  their  Remedies,"  written  in  about  1670, 
complained  of  "the  long  continued  diverting  of  the  Young 
and  proHfick  People  to  the  Plantations."^  At  the  same 
time,  a  well-known  publicist,  Roger  Coke,  maintained  that 
"Ireland  and  our  Plantations  Rob  us  of  all  the  growing 
Youth  and  Industry  of  the  Nation,  whereby  it  becomes 
week  and  feeble,  and  the  Strength,  as  well  as  Trade,  becomes 
decayed  and  diminished."  ^  So  general  was  this  view  that 
the  imperialists  of  the  day  were  put  on  the  defensive,  and 
were  forced  to  answer  these  current  charges.^  In  1689,  the 
representatives  of  Barbados  in  England  found  it  necessary 
to  publish  a  refutation  of  the  charge  that  the  colonies  were 
weakening  England.  They  skilfully  pointed  out  that  the 
population  of  a  country  depends  upon  its  industrial  develop- 
ment, and  added  "tis  strange  we  should  be  thought  to 

1  Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  3828,  f.  205**. 

*  Roger  Coke,  A  Discourse  of  Trade  (London,  1670),  p.  46.  Cf.  pp.  12, 
13,  43.  In  1667,  Mr.  Garroway  said  that  the  English  colonies  "have  a 
constant  supply  out  of  England^  which  in  time  will  drain  us  of  people,  as 
now  Spain  is,  and  will  endanger  our  ruin,  as  now  the  Indies  do  Spain  J* 
Grey,  Debates,  1667-1694,  I,  p.  40.  Evelyn  referred  to  "the  ruinous 
numbers  of  our  Men,  daily  flocking  to  the  American  Plantations,  and  from 
whence  so  few  return."  John  Evelyn,  Navigation  and  Commerce  (Lon- 
don, 1674),  p.  112.  On  this  rare  pamphlet,  see  the  author's  diary  under 
date  of  August  19,  1674.  For  similar  statements,  see  Carew  Reynell,  The 
True  EngHsh  Interest  (London,  1674),  p.  33 ;  Britannia  Languens  (London, 
1680),  p.  176;  England's  Guide  to  Industry  (London,  1683),  preface. 

2  The  proprietors  of  East  New  Jersey,  when  engaged  in  an  attempt  to  at- 
tract Scottish  settlers  to  their  colony,  took  pains  to  assert  that  "  the  chief 
Reason  against  Forraign  Plantations  being  the  drawing  too  many  Inhabitants 
out  of  the  Nation,  and  so  leaving  the  Countries  at  Home  unfurnished  of  Peo- 
ple "  did  not  apply  to  Scotland,  which  could  spare  some  of  its  population.  A 
Brief  Accoimt  of  the  Province  of  East-New- Jersey  (Edinburgh,  1683),  p.  3. 


diminish  the  people  of  England,  when  we  do,  so  much  increase 
the  Emplo3anents"  there.^ 

In  general,  the  defence  of  the  colonial  movement  was 
conducted  on  these  lines.  Dalby  Thomas,  the  author  of  an 
interesting  account  of  the  West  Indies  pubHshed  in  1690, 
admitted  that  people  were  the  wealth  of  a  nation,  but 
denied  that  the  American  colonies,  by  causing  emigration 
from  England,  occasioned  "the  Decay  both  of  the  People 
and  Riches  of  the  Nation,"  because  one  laboring  man  in  the 
West  Indies  was  of  more  advantage  to  England  than  were 
a  considerable  number  of  his  fellows  at  home.^  Sir  Francis 
Brewster  maintained  that  it  could  not  "be  denied,  however 
some  may  apprehend,  but  the  Foreign  Plantations  add  to  the 
Strength  and  Treasure  of  the  Nation,  even  in  that  of  People, 
which  is  generally  thought  our  Plantations  abroad  consume; 
but  if  it  were  considered.  That  by  taking  off  one  useless 

*  The  Groans  of  the  Plantations  (London,  1689),  pp.  26-29. 

2  Dalby  Thomas,  An  Historical  Account  of  the  Rise  and  Growth  of  the 
West-India  Colonies  (London,  1690),  in  Harleian  Miscellany  II,  pp.  342,  346, 
363.  Essentially  the  same  argument  was  used  by  WilHam  Penn  to  "deny 
the  vulgar  Opinion  against  Plantations,  that  they  weaken  England^  He 
claimed  that  the  colonies  had  enriched  the  mother  country  in  various  ways : 
first,  because  the  industry  of  those  settling  in  them  is  worth  more  than  if 
they  had  remained  at  home  —  "the  Product  of  their  Labour  being  in  Com- 
modities of  a  superiour  Nature  to  those  of  this  Country" ;  secondly,  as  more 
is  produced  in  the  colonies  than  can  be  consumed  in  England,  this  excess  is 
exported  to  foreign  nations,  "which  brings  in  Money,  or  the  Growth  of 
those  Countries,  which  is  the  same  Thing";  thirdly,  by  settling  in  the 
colonies,  many  have  prospered  and  are  able  to  buy  far  greater  quantities 
of  Enghsh  manufactures  than  if  they  had  remained  at  home ;  fourthly,  the 
colonial  trade  employs  a  large  number  of  ships.    William  Penn,    op.  cit. 

pp.  26-28 ;  A.  C.  Myers,  Narratives  of  Early  Pennsylvania  etc.,  pp.  202- 
204. 


24 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF^THE  PERIOD 


25 


1^ 


'  I 


person,  for  such  generally  go  abroad,  we  add  Twenty  Blacks 
in  the  Labour  and  Manufactories  of  this  Nation,  that  Mis- 
take would  be  removed/'  ^ 

John  Gary,  a  prominent  Bristol  merchant  and  a  writer 
on  the  economic  questions  of  the  day,  as  a  preliminary  to 
his  discussion  of  colonial  trade  also  considered  it  necessary 
to  discuss  the  doubt  raised  by  "many  thoughtful  men," 
whether  the  colonies  had  been  of  advantage  to  England.^ 
These  men,  he  said,  urged  that  the  colonies  had  drained 
England  of  multitudes  of  people,  who  might  have  been 
serviceable  at  home  in  improving  husbandry  and  manu- 
factures; and  that,  as  its  inhabitants  are  the  wealth  of  a 
nation,  England  was  the  poorer  to  the  extent  of  this  emi- 
gration. Gary  admitted  that  people  were  wealth,  provided 
there  was  adequate  employment  for  them,  yet  he  claimed 
that  the  colonies  were  of  distinct  value  to  England,  both  as 
a  market  for  EngKsh  produce  and  as  a  source  of  supply.^ 

1  Sir  Francis  Brewster,  Essays  on  Trade  and  Navigation  (London,  1695), 
p.  70.  It  was,  however,  contended  by  another  writer  that  the  labor  of  the 
same  people  in  the  Enghsh  fisheries  and  manufactures  would  have  produced 
a  greater  profit  than  that  derived  from  the  plantation  commodities,  sugar, 
tobacco,  dyeing-stuffs,  ek.  raised  by  them.  Moreover,  had  these  people 
not  emigrated,  he  maintained,  they  would  have  consumed  more  English 
produce,  for  England  suppHed  the  colonies  with  only  a  small  part  of  their 
foodstuffs.  The  bulk,  he  asserted,  came  from  Ireland  and  from  the  north- 
em  colonies,  and  as  a  result,  he  concluded,  the  colonial  trade  had  during 
the  past  twenty  years  become  mcreasingly  disadvantageous  to  England. 
Britannia  Languens  (London,  1680),  p.  173. 

2  John  Gary,  An  Essay  on  the  State  of  England  in  relation  to  its  Trade 
(Bristol,  1695),  pp.  65-67. 

'  Gary  said  that,  in  varying  degrees,  the  colonies  were  advantageous  to 
England,  "as  they  take  off  our  Product  and  Manufactures,  supply  us  with 


But  without  such  compensating  benefits,  he  wrote  to  a 
private  correspondent,  emigration  would  be  like  "opening 
a  Vein  in  a  Mans  Body,  &  letting  him  bleed  to  death,  w'^ 
might  be  of  good  use  to  his  health  if  no  more  Blood  was 
taken  from  him  than  he  could  well  Spare/'  ^ 

In  another  essay  of  about  the  same  time,  essentially  the 
same  views  were  expressed.^  Its  author  said  that  "a  vulgar 
error  has  too  much  prevailed  with  some  of  our  great  men  to 
the  prejudice  of  those  Plantations,  and  therein  to  the 
interest  of  England,  viz.  that  the  Colonies  of  the  West 
Indies  drains  us  of  our  people,  in  which  consist  our  wealth 
and  strength,  and  consequently  we  should  be  richer  and 
greater  without  them."  This  argument  he  answered  by 
stating  that  the  colonies  had  returned  as  many  people  as 
they  had  received,  and  by  pointing  out  that,  in  addition,  these 
possessions  were  of  great  economic  advantage  to  England. 
"The  labor  of  the  people  there  is  twice  the  value  to  England 
that  it  would  be  at  home,  both  because  the  commodities 
are  more  profitable,  and  that  it  gives  England  a  market 

Gommodities  which  may  be  either  wrought  up  here,  or  Exported  again,  or 
prevent  fetching  things  of  the  same  Nature  from  other  Princes  for  our 
home  Gonsimiption,  employ  our  Poor,  and  encourage  our  Navigation ;  for 
I  take  England  and  all  its  Plantations  to  be  one  great  Body,  those  being  so 
many  Limbs  or  Gounties  belonging  to  it,  therefore  when  we  consume  their 
Growth  we  do  as  it  were  Spend  the  Fruits  of  our  own  Land,  and  what 
thereof  we  sell  to  our  Neighbours  for  Bullion,  or  such  Gommodities  as  we 
must  pay  for  therein,  brings  a  second  Profit  to  the  Nation." 

^  Gary  to  Edmimd  Bohun,  Jan.  31,  1696.    Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  5540, 
f.  61. 

^  Gonsiderations  about  the  Enghsh  Golonies  in  America,  in  MSS.  of  Duke 
of  Buccleuch  and  Queensberry  (H.  M.  C.  1903)  II,  pp.  735-737. 


M 


V. 


26 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD 


27 


I! 


|l' 


she  could  not  otherwise  have,  both  abroad  and  at  home,  to 
her  great  enrichment." 

Similarly,  Charles  Davenant,  in  his  well-known  work  on 
England's  revenue  and  trade,  discussed  the  two  general 
objections  to  the  colonies  :  first,  that  they  are  a  retreat  for 
men  opposed  to  the  established  system  in  church  and  state ; 
secondly,  "that  they  drein  this  Kingdom  of  People,  the 
most  Important  Strength  of  any  Nation."  ^  In  connection 
with  this  latter  objection,  Davenant  called  attention  to  the 
fact  that,  in  spite  of  the  colonies,  England's  population  had 
greatly  increased  since  1600.  He  did  not,  however,  deny  the 
vaKdity  of  this  general  argument  against  colonization, 
merely  pointing  out  that  in  England  this  disadvantage  had 
been  more  than  counterbalanced  by  other  factors.  "Coim- 
tries  that  take  no  Care  to  encourage  an  Accession  of  stran- 
gers," he  freely  admitted,  "in  Course  of  Time,  will  find 
Plantations  of  Pernicious  Consequence."  But  this,  he  said, 
was  not  the  case  with  England,  which  had  added  to  its 
population  a  large  number  of  Huguenot  refugees.  On  the 
whole,  he  concluded  that  the  colonies  "are  a  spring  of 
Wealth  to  this  Nation,  that  they  work  for  us,  that  their 
Treasm-e  centers  all  here." 

From  this  somewhat  summary  account  of  contemporary 
thought,  it  is  apparent  that  in  itself  emigration  to  the 
plantations  was  in  general  deemed  a  decided  evil,  which 
could  be  condoned  only  if  greater  contervaiUng  advantages 
were  derived  from  the  colonies.  This  phase  of  public  opin- 
ion was  naturally  reflected  in  the  views  and  attitude  of  the 

*  Davenant,  op.  cit.  II,  pp.  195-203. 


government.  In  this  connection  may  profitably  be  cited  an 
episode  which  throws  considerable  light  on  the  policy  of  the 
authorities.  In  1679,  a  suggestion  was  made  to  the  Caro- 
lina proprietors  that  a  considerable  number  of  Huguenots 
should  be  transported  to  their  colony,  where  they  could  raise 
silk,  oil,  wine,  and  such  other  products  as  England  was  obliged 
to  purchase  from  southern  Europe.  The  Lords  Proprietors, 
however,  stated  that  they  had  already  spent  large  sums  of 
money  and  had  brought  the  colony  to  so  prosperous  a  condi- 
tion that  for  years  men  had  gone  thither  on  their  own  account. 
Hence,  the  proprietors  were  not  willing  to  incur  this  addi- 
tional expense,  but  they  pointed  out  that  the  proposition 
would  be  advantageous  both  to  them  and  to  England,  be- 
cause these  French  refugees  were  skilled  in  planting  vine- 
yards and  ohve  trees  and  in  the  making  of  silk;  and,  if  these 
industries  were  once  successfully  estabHshed  in  Carolina, 
other  foreign  Protestants  would  be  attracted  there.^  The 
proposal  appealed  to  the  government,  but  before  deciding 
to  grant  the  desired  assistance,^  it  referred  the  matter  to  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Customs,  as  was  usual  when  an  expert 
opinion  was  wanted  on  fijiancial  or  commercial  questions. 

As  this  board  had  not  been  informed  whether  these 
Huguenots  were  already  in  England  or  were  still  in  France, 
their  careful  report  of  April  14,  1679,^  contained  alterna- 

1  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  321,  328,  336. 

^  These  Huguenots  requested  that  two  ships  of  the  navy  transport  eighty 
families  to  CaroHna,  and  that  £2000  be  reimbursed  to  them  for  their  ex- 
penses out  of  the  EngUsh  customs  on  commodities  imported  from  the  pro- 
posed settlement.    Ihid.  pp.  340,  341. 

*  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  p.  243. 


28 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


tive  advice,  contingent  upon  the  ascertainment  of  this  fact. 
"We  canot,"  they  wrote,  "advise  that  his  ma''"  should  give 
any  Incouragement  to  any  People  who  are  settled  in  this 
Kingdome  whether  Natives  or  f foreigners  to  transport  them- 
selves from  hence  into  any  of  his  Ma*'*^  Plantacons  or  Ire- 
land. On  the  contrary,  we  are  of  opinion  that  there  are  too 
many  f f  amilyes  that  do  daylye  Transport  themselves  both  to 
the  Plantacons  &  to  Ireland  to  the  unpeopling  &  ruine  of 
this  Kingdome.  And  we  are  of  opinion  that  means  are  rather 
to  be  used  for  the  hindring  then  the  promoting  thereof ;  but 
if  these  ffamilies  are  now  really  in  parts  beyond  the  Seas,  we 
think  that  the  Encouraging  of  them  to  come  over  to  goe  to 
Carolina  is  a  very  good  Work."  This  report  was  approved, 
and  orders  were  given  to  provide  two  ships  for  the  trans- 
portation of  these  Huguenots  to  CaroKna,  provided  they 
had  or  should  come  to  England  for  this  specific  purpose 
only.^ 

In  view  of  this  attitude,  it  would,  indeed,  not  have  been 
surprising  if  the  government  had  restricted  emigration  to  the 
colonies.  Under  the  prevailing  conditions,  the  problem  was, 
however,  not  an  urgent  one.  Although  there  was  a  steady 
stream  of  people  flowing  from  England  to  America,  it  was 
of  but  insignificant  dimensions,^  and  was  composed  in  part 

1  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  364,  366,  367,  428,  435,  455 ;  p.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp. 
825,  826. 

2  Reliable  figures  are  unfortunately  not  avaUable.  Davenant  estimated 
that  the  annual  average  emigration  to  the  colonies  amounted  to  1800  people 
as  against  300  returning  yearly  from  them  to  England.  Davenant,  op.  ciU 
II,  p.  203.  Those  who  opposed  colonization  as  tending  to  weaken  England 
were  incUned  grossly  to  over-estimate  the  number  of  emigrants.  Cf.  Carew 
Reynell,  The  True  Enghsh  Interest  (London,  1674),  pp.  7,  8. 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD  29 

of  foreigners  who  had  sought  a  merely  temporary  refuge  in 
England.    There  was  not  sufiicient  economic  pressure  in 
England  to  cause  a  marked  dislocation  of  population.    Nor 
were  conditions  in  the  colonies  so  attractive  that  adventur- 
ous spirits  were  drawn  there  in  large  numbers  by  the  confi- 
dent expectation  of  bettering  their  social  status.     Emigration 
and  subsequent  settlement  involved  heavy  expenses,^  and 
the  outcome  was  at  best  an  uncertain  one.     Some  especially 
.  energetic,  or  merely  sanguine,  Englishmen  emigrated  with 
such  hopes,  but  a  large  proportion  of  those  voluntarily 
leaving  England  did  so  for  non-economic  reasons.     It  was 
to  escape  the  penalties  of  the  Enghsh  religious  code  that 
many  Quakers  left  their  homes  and  settled  in  New  Jersey 
and  Pennsylvania. 

In  addition,  the  Enghsh  government  systematically  de- 
ported to  the  colonies  many  undesirable  elements  in  its 
population  —  poHtical  prisoners,  religious  nonconformists, 
delinquents,  and  criminals.^  Thus,  in  1665,  126  Quakers  in 
Newgate,  as  well  as  some  others  imprisoned  elsewhere,  were 
ordered  to  be  transported  to  the  colonies.^  In  1666,  100 
Irish  rebels  were  deported  to  Barbados,^  and  in  1685,  after 
the  coUapse  of   Monmouth's  insurrection,  800  of  his  ad- 

^  The  cost  of  transportation  alone  continued  as  formerly  to  be  about  £6 
Bnt  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395  ff.  277  et  seq.;  A.  C.  Myers,  Narratives  of 
i^arly  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  pp.  194,  211.     Cf.  Beer,  Origins,  p.  49. 

(\    ^\?'   ■^''^^^''   '"^   ^""^'"^   Convicts  shipped   to   American    Colonies 
(Am.  Hist.  Rev.  II),  gives  some  interesting  detaUs,  and  shows  that  the 
convict  element  was  of  considerable  proportions. 
P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  393,  394^  402,  415,  417. 
*  MSS.  of  Earl  of  Egmont  (H.  M.  C.  1909)  II,  p.  16. 


ao 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


(.  i 


herents  were  sent  to  forced  labor  in  the  same  colony,^  and 
some  also  were  transported  to  Jamaica.^  Disorderly  persons 
and  convicts  were  regularly  shipped  to  America.^  Virginia 
objected  to  this  policy  and  secured  exemption  from  it;*  but, 
in  1684,  St.  Kitts  sent  to  England  a  petition,  which  was 
granted,  that  the  300  malefactors  "long  since  ordered" 
might  finally  be  transported  so  as  to  strengthen  the  colony.^ 
Many  of  these  convicts  were  well  adapted  to  their  new  life ; 
in  some,  the  very  qualities  that  had  brought  them  into  difficul- 
ties with  the  complex  civiHzation  of  England  fitted  them 
admirably  for  the  primitive  conditions  in  the  colonies,  where 
extreme  individuaHsm  and  independence  were  an  advantage 
in  the  conflict  with  the  more  or  less  untamed  forces  of  nature. 
These  various  elements,  voluntarily  settling  in  America  or 
forcibly  located  there,  in  part  peopled  the  new  colonies  that 

*  G.  M.  Trevelyan,  England  iinder  the  Stuarts,  p.  431.  See  also  C.  C. 
1685-1688,  pp.  139,  140,  i47-i49>  651. 

2  Ibid.  p.  201. 

3  cf.  P.  c.  Cai.  I,  pp.  370, 371 ;  II,  p.  36. 

*  Charles  II,  bemg  informed  by  letters  from  Virginia  that  "great  danger 
and  disrepute  is  brought  vpon  that  his  Majestys  Plantation  by  the  frequent 
sending  thither  of  ffellons  and  other  Condemned  Persons,"  for  the  preven- 
tion whereof  Virginia  had  passed  an  order  prohibiting  such  importation,  on 
October  21,  1670,  by  Order  in  Coimcil,  directed  that  in  future  no  felons  nor 
convicts  be  sent  to  Virginia,  but  only  to  the  other  colonies.  P.  C.  Cal.  I, 
p.  553.    See  also  Va.  Mag.  XIX,  pp.  355,  356. 

*  P.  C.  Cal.  II,  pp.  68,  69.  Already  in  1676  the  EngUsh  government 
had  agreed  to  meet  the  expense  involved  in  their  transportation,  and  in  1677 
Treasurer  Danby  instructed  the  sheriffs  of  London  and  Middlesex  to  deUver 
300  convicts  to  a  London  merchant,  who  was  to  give  bond  to  take  them  to 
St.  Kitts.  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  p.  826 ;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  335, 
346,  347 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  708,  709.    See  also  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  572, 

573. 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD  31 

were  founded  in  the  Restoration  era.    But  to  some  extent 
these  territories,  especially  the  Carolinas  and  the  Jerseys,  were 
settled  by  the  surplus  population  of  Barbados,  the  Bermudas, 
Virginia,  and  New  England.     The  restless  spirit  of  the  people 
in  some  of  the  older  colonies,  the  gradual  displacement  of 
white  labor  by  the  negro  in  the  sugar  plantations  of  the 
West  Indies,  the  confined  limits  of  the  already  more  than 
adequately  populated  Bermudas,  combined  with  the  fact 
that  by  reproduction  alone  the  population  of  these  colonies 
was  increasing  rapidly,  greatly  facihtated  and  would  in  itself 
probably  have  led  to  this  territorial  extension  of  the  Empire. 
The  Atlantic  seaboard,  not  the  interior,  was  the  line  of 
least  resistance  for  this  expanding  population. 

In  general,  except  in  so  far  as  the  deportation  of  those 
deemed  undesirable  at  home  was  concerned,  the  EngHsh 
government  was  naturaUy  adverse  to  emigration  from 
England.!  It  tried,  however,  to  facilitate  immigration  into 
the  colonies  from  Scotland  and  Ireland.^    Yet  the  govern- 

1  As  it  was  deemed  important  that  Jamaica  should  be  speedily  settled, 
emigration  to  that  colony  was  even  encouraged.  In  1661,  a  royal  procla- 
mation offered  thirty  acres  of  land  to  each  settler,  and  stated  that  "aU 
Free  persons  shaU  have  liberty  without  Interruption,  to  transport  them- 
selves and  their  FamiUes,  and  any  their  Goods  (except  only  Coyn  and 
BuUions)  from  any  of  Our  Dominions  and  Territories,  to  the  said  Island  of 
Jamaica."  When,  in  1662,  the  new  Governor,  Lord  Wmdsor,  came  to 
Jamaica,  he  brought  this  proclamation  with  him.  British  Royal  Proclama- 
tions, 1603-1783  (Am.  Antiqu.  Soc.  1911),  pp.  X12-114;  W.  J.  Gardner, 
A  History  of  Jamaica  (London,  1909),  p.  51. 

'  The  "Staple  Act"  of  1663,  which  prohibited  the  importation  of  Euro- 
pean  commodities  into  the  colonies  except  from  England,  specifically  ex- 
empted  from  this  prohibition  servants  from  Ireland  and  Scotland,     i?  Ch 
11,  c.  7,  §  V. 


^il 


« 


III 


22  THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 

ment  did  not  find  it  necessary,  except  in  one  respect,  to 
adopt  measures  to  restrict  the  slight  spontaneous  movement 
of  emigration  to  the  colonies.^    One  of  the  chief  benefits 
expected  from  the  Newfoundland  fishery  was  the  training 
and  increase  of  seamen,  and  hence  the  crew  of  every  English 
fishing  vessel  had  to  be  composed  in  part  of  inexperienced 
and  untrained  men.    If  these  seamen  were  allowed  to  settle 
in  Newfoundland  or  to  emigrate  thence  to  the  other  colonies, 
the  advantage  of  this  country  as  "a  nursery  of  seamen" 
would  be  greatly  diminished.    Hence,  the  English  vessels 
going  to  Newfoundland  for  their  annual  fishing  were  obh- 
gated  to  bring  their  crews  back  to  England  and  the  emigra- 
tion of  seamen  from  Newfoundland  to  New  England  was 
strictly  forbidden.^ 

While  the  extent  of  emigration  did  not  necessitate  the 
adoption  of  any  comprehensive  measures  to  check  its  course, 
in  connection  with  it  there  developed  certain  evils  which 
occasioned  governmental  interference  and  control.  As  a 
rule,  in  return  for  his  passage  to  America,  the  emigrant 
agreed  to  work  in  semi-servitude  for  a  term  of  years,  usually 
five.    On  arrival  in  the  colonies,  the  master  or  owner  of  the 

1  The  officials  who  supervised  emigration  could,  however,  readily  restrict 
the  movement  by  creating  obstacles.  In  1682,  Governor  Lynch  of  Jamaica 
complained  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  that  few  or  no  servants  came  from  Eng- 
land and  that  he  was  informed  'that  my  Lord  Chief  Justice  will  permit 
none  to  come,  though  they  are  wiUing  and  go  to  acknowledge  it  before  the 
Magistrate  as  the  law  directs/  He  asserted  that  the  idle  people,  who  did 
mischief  in  London,  would  prove  beneficial  in  Jamaica.    C.  C.  1681-1685, 

p.  282. 

2  C.  O.  I9S/2,  f.  7;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  '558-563;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp. 
600,  601 ;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  294.    See  post,  Chapter  X. 


I 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD 


ZZ 


ship   recouped   himself   by   selling   this   temporary   slave, 
euphemistically  known  as  an  indentured  servant.     Since 
the  demand  for  labor  in  the  colonies  was  very  keen,  this 
traffic  was  found  most  profitable,  and  inevitably  led  to 
many  grave  abuses.    In   1660,  it  was  said  that  "  diuerse 
Children  from  their  Parents,  and  Seruants  from  their  Masters, 
are  daylie  inticed  away,  taken  upp,  and  kept  from  their  said 
Parents  and  Masters  against  their  Wills,  by  Merchants, 
Planters,  Commanders  of  Shipps,  and  Seamen  trading  to 
Virginia,  Barbados,  Charibee  Islands  and  other  parts  of 
the  West  Indies,  and  their  Factors  and  Agents,  and  shipped 
away  to  make  Sale  and  Merchandize  of."  ^    Accordingly,  in 
1664,  an  office  was  created  for  registering  the  contracts  of 
such  persons  as  should  go  to  the  colonies  as  servants.^ 
The  evils  complained  of,   however,   still  continued.^    In 
addition  to  "spiriting,"  as  this  kidnapping  and  forcible 
transportation  was  popularly  called,  another  abuse  developed. 
Many  persons,  who  had  agreed  to  go  to  the  colonies  and  had 
received  money  for  so  doing,  afterwards  pretended  that  they 
had  been  carried  away  against  their  will,  and  induced  their 
friends  to  prosecute  the  merchants  whohad  transported  them. 

*  P.  C.  Cal  I,  pp.  296,  297.  See  also  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  ff- 
277  et  seq.  The  Comicil  for  Foreign  Plantations,  appointed  in  1660,  was 
instructed  to  consider  how  the  colonies  may  best  be  suppHed  with  servants, 
but  that  none  should  be  forced  to  emigrate  or  be  enticed  away  and  that  only 
such  as  were  wiUing  "to  seeke  better  fortunes  than  they  can  meete  with  at 
home  "  should  be  encouraged.  C.  O.  1/14,  59,  ff  •  3, 4 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill, 
PP-  34-36. 

'  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  384. 

^^    '  B.  T.  Journals  124  (MisceUanies,  1664-1674),  ff.  1-19.    For  a  case  of 
spmting"  in  1679,  see  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  863. 


34 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


As  a  result,  in  1682,  the  office  established  in  1664  was 
abolished,  and  a  more  elaborate  and  effective  method  was 
inaugurated  for  controlling  this  system  of  contract  labor.^ 

From  the  foregoing,  it  will  be  plainly  apparent  that  one 
of  the  chief  advantages  originally  anticipated  from  the 
colonial  movement  by  the  contemporaries  of  Hakluyt  and 
Raleigh  and  by  their  successors  under  the  first  Stuarts  had 
proven  illusory.  England  no  longer  wanted  over-sea  domin- 
ions as  homes  for  a  population  that  was  thought  excessive, 
and  had  even  veered  to  the  opposite  point  and  regarded 
colonies  as  an  evil  sapping  the  national  strength  to  the 
extent  that  they  attracted  to  them  the  inhabitants  of  the 
metropolis.  Hence,  there  was  a  marked  tendency  in  favor 
of  the  colonization  of  tropical  and  sub-tropical  regions  which 
could  be  advantageously  exploited  by  a  small  white  popu- 
lation superintending  the  labor  of  a  large  number  of  negro 
slaves.  Thus  Sir  Josiah  Child,  in  discussing  the  wide- 
spread view  that  the  colonies  had  prejudiced  England 
"by  draining  us  of  our  People,"  conceded  that,  "people 
being  Riches,''  emigration  to  America  would  be  a  distinct 
national  loss,  unless  "the  employment  of  those  People 
abroad  do  cause  the  employment  of  so  many  more  at  home 
in  their  Mother  Kingdoms."  ^  He  then  pointed  out  that 
for  one  EngHshman  in  the  West  Indies  there  were  as  a  rule 
eight  to  ten  negro  slaves,  and  that,  as  their  joint  labor  gave 
employment  to  four  men  in  England,  emigration  to  those 
colonies  would  increase  the  population  of  the  mother  country. 

1  P.  C.  Cal.  II,  pp.  41-43- 

2  Child,  A  New  Discourse  of  Trade  (London,  1693),  p.  184. 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD 


35 


On  the  other  hand,  according  to  him,  ten  men  in  the  northern 
colonies,  such  as  Massachusetts,  did  not  employ  one  man 
in  England.^  Hence  it  followed  inevitably  that  the  southern 
continental  and  especially  the  island  colonies  were  regarded 
with  marked  favor. 

This  attitude  likewise  was  a  direct  consequence  of  the 
prevailing  economic  theory  of  colonization  and  of  the  actual 
course  of  colonial  trade.  What  exactly  were  these  economic 
benefits  that  England  expected  to  derive  from  the  colonies  in 
order  to  counteract  any  loss  that  might  be  suffered  through 
emigration  to  them  ?  As  has  already  been  pointed  out,  the 
colonial  trade  was  highly  valued  as  one  of  the  main  founda- 
tions of  England's  growing  sea  power.  This  view  was  more 
emphasized  than  it  had  been  in  the  period  of  origins.^  In 
addition,  there  were  claimed  certain  specific  fiscal  and 
economic  advantages.  A  curious  idea  prevailed  extensively 
during  the  seventeenth  century  that  the  English  customs 
duties  on  colonial  produce  were  paid  by  the  colonies  and 
that  they  consequently  contributed  largely  to  the  public 
revenue.^  Thus  Clarendon  tells  us  that,  before  the  restora- 
tion of  the  kingship,  he  had  become  convinced  of  the  value 
of  the  colonies  and  that  "he  had  been  confirmed  in  that 

1  Ihid.  pp.  207,  208.  Early  in  the  following  century,  N.  Grew,  in  the 
course  of  an  essay  on  the  economic  condition  of  England,  said  that  "the 
Transporting  of  People  to  our  Plantations  Should  be  Stinted.  Whether 
with  the  Addition  of  their  Blacks  they  may  not  Multiply  Sufficiently  to 
Answer  the  Trade  we  haue  or  may  haue  with  them  without  sending  them 
any  more  People  or  with  fewer  Sent  I  humbly  Conceiue  deserves  to  be 
Considered."    Brit.  Mus.,  Lansdowne  MSS.  691,  f.  108. 

2  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  73,  74. 

^  This  idea  was  prominent  before  1660.    Ihid.  pp.  201-203. 


36 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


opinion  and  desire,  as  soon  as  he  had  a  view  of  the  entries  in 
the  custom  house ;  by  which  he  found  what  a  great  revenue 
accrued  to  the  Crown  from  those  plantations."  ^  Many 
other  writers  also  called  attention  to  this  supposed  benefit. 
William  Penn  pointed  out  that  each  Virginia  planter  pro- 
duced three  thousand  poimds  of  tobacco  yearly  which  paid  in 
England  an  import  duty  of  £25,  "an  extraordinary  Profit."  ^ 
Similarly,  the  writer  of  "Some  Observations  about  the 
Plantations"  stated  that  the  customs  on  tobacco  and  sugar, 
amounting  yearly  to  £160,000,  were  paid  by  the  colonies.^ 
It  does  not  require  much  subtle  or  searching  analysis  to 
perceive  that  the  reasoning  leading  to  this  conclusion  was 
largely  erroneous.  In  so  far  as  was  concerned  that  portion 
of  the  colonial  products  consumed  in  England,  these  duties 
were  shifted  to  the  English  consumer,  and  affected  the 
colonial  producer  only  to  the  limited  extent  that  they  re- 
stricted the  available  demand  by  enhancing  the  retail  price. 
This  constituted  the  btdk  of  the  customs  revenue  derived 
from  the  colonial  trade,  and  unquestionably  the  same 
amount  would  have  arisen  if  the  tobacco  and  sugar  had  been 
imported  from  foreign  coimtries  instead  of  from  the  colonies. 
In  addition,  a  considerable  proportion  of  the  colonial  im- 

1  Clarendon's  Autobiography  (Oxford,  1827)  III,  p.  407. 

^  WiUiam  Penn,  op.  cit.  p.  27 ;  A.  C.  Myers,  Narratives  of  Early  Penn- 
sylvania etc. J  p.  203. 

*  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  28,079,  f-  85.  See  also  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS. 
2395,  f-  574.  In  his  Discourse  and  View  of  Virginia,  Governor  Berkeley 
pointed  out  that  one-quarter  of  the  English  customs  revenue  was  derived 
from  colonial  goods.  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  357**.  In  the  seventies  this 
revenue  amounted  to  about  £600,000.     W.  R.  Scott,  op.  cit.  Ill,  pp.  530,  531. 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD  37 

ports  into  England  was  again  reexported;  in  such  cases 
the  greater  part  of  the  EngHsh  duties  was  repaid,  on  tobacco 
three-quarters,  on  sugar  one-half.  What  remained  in  the 
Exchequer  was  not  large  in  amount,  but  to  this  extent 
certainly  the  colonies  contributed  to  England's  public 
revenue.  Likewise  the  small  export  duties  levied  in  Eng- 
land on  English  goods  shipped  to  the  colonies  were  ultimately 
paid  by  the  colonial  consumer,  as  were  also  the  customs 
duties  collected  on  foreign  goods  in  course  of  shipment  via 
England  to  the  colonies.  But,  in  the  main,  this  supposed 
advantage  was  fictitious.  Delusions  are,  however,  as  effec- 
tive in  social  evolution  as  are  imassailable  facts.  The  bulk 
of  the  revenue  from  the  colonial  trade  was  derived  from  the 
import  duties  on  tobacco  and  sugar,^  and  this  fact  furnished  an 
additional  reason  for  favoring  the  plantation  type  of  colony. 
Apart  from  the  greater  stress  laid  on  the  colonial  trade 
as  a  source  of  sea  power,  and  apart  from  this  somewhat 
higher  estimate  of  its  fiscal  importance,  the  Restoration 
economic  theory  of  colonization  corresponded  closely  with 
that  obtaining  at  the  outset  of  the  movement,  under  Eliza- 
beth and  her  successors.^  It  was  still  deemed  the  primary 
function  of  the  colony  to  furnish  the  metropolis  with  supplies 
not  produced  there,  and  which  otherwise  would  have  to  be 

*  See  an  account  of  the  customs  paid  in  the  year  167 6- 1677  on  goods 
imported  from : 

Barbados  and  the  Leeward  Isles £20,781 

Jamaica £  3,500 

Bermudas £  2,406 

£26,687 

C.  O.  1/42,  6oiii;  C.  O.  324/4,  ff.  S'^i  59-    For  further  details  see  post, 
Chapter  III. 

^  Beer,  Origins,  Chapter  III. 


y 


38 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


secured  from  foreign  rivals  in  Europe.  In  other  words, 
the  ideal  colony  was  one  which  would  have  freed  England 
from  the  necessity  of  importing  anything  from  her  com- 
petitors. In  addition,  the  suppHes  obtained  from  the  plan- 
tations were  not  to  be  entirely  consimied  in  England,  but 
their  surplus  was  to  be  exported  to  foreign  countries  to  the 
manifest  advantage  of  the  nation's  trade  balance.^  As  far  as 
it  was  possible  the  colony  was  to  dififer  from  England  in  its 
economic  pursuits,  producing  nothing  that  interfered  with 
the  fullest  development  of  any  EngHsh  industry  or  trade. 
It  was  to  be  the  economic  complement  of  the  mother  country, 
both  together  constituting  a  self-sufficient  commercial 
empire.  It  naturally  followed  that  the  colony  was  to 
purchase  its  manufactures  from  England  and  thus  employ 
EngHsh  labor.  But  while  its  value  as  a  market  was  fully 
V  recogmzed,^  chief  stress  was  laid  upon  the  colony  as  a  source 
of  supply.^  "The  ends  of  their  first  settlement,''  wrote 
Gary,  "were  rather  to  provide  Materials  for  the  increas- 
ing our  Trade  at  home,  and  keeping  our  people  at  work 

*  Without  these  reexports  of  colonial  produce,  it  was  claimed,  England's 
balance  of  trade  would  have  been  an  unfavorable  one.  Bodleian,  Raw- 
linson  A  478,  f.  48. 

2  Pollexfen  pointed  out  that  the  colonies  consumed  large  quantities  of 
EngHsh  products  and  manufactures,  as  well  as  provisions  and  handicraft 
wares,  and  suppUed  England  with  some  goods  for  further  manufacture  and 
others  in  great  abundance,  especially  tobacco  and  sugar,  for  export  to  for- 
eign nations.  John  Pollexfen,  A  Discourse  of  Trade,  Coyn  and  Paper 
Credit  (London,  1697),  P-  86. 

3  Among  the  papers  of  WiUiam  Bridgeman,  Clerk  of  the  Privy  Council 
toward  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century  (Evelyn,  May  7,  1699 ;  Diet, 
of  Nat.  Biography :  John  Bridgeman),  is  an  unsigned  and  undated  memorial 
on  the  plantation  trade  which,  more  than  was  customary,  emphasized  the 


THE  COLONLVL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD 


39 


here."  ^  This  view  was  supported  by  the  actual  facts  of 
the  existing  colonial  trade. 

The  exports  to  the  colonies  were  far  less  than  the  imports 
thence.  In  1662-1663  the  exports  from  London  to  the  planta- 
tions were  only  £105,910,  as  opposed  to  imports  of  £484,641. 
Six  years  later,  although  these  exports  had  remained  at  vir- 
tually the  same  figure  —  they  were  £107,791 —  the  imports 
had  risen  to  £605,574.^    The  exports  ^  were  comparatively 

value  of  the  colonies  as  markets.  Its  author  pointed  out  that  England 
exported  to  other  places  but  few  manufactures,  except  woollens,  and  rarely 
many  foreign  commodities,  while  to  the  colonies  were  sent  manufactures  of 
wool,  iron,  brass,  tin,  lead,  leather,  silk,  and  also  provisions  and  other 
necessaries,  "which  we  cannot  with  any  profitt  carry  into  other  Countryes." 
Nor,  he  added,  do  we  export  much  less  of  foreign  commodities  than  of  our 
own.  He  wrote  pessimistically  about  England's  export  trade  in  woollens, 
which  he  claimed  was  declining  rapidly,  and  asserted  that  the  colonies 
alone  could  compensate  for  this  loss  of  foreign  markets.  Bodleian,  Rawlin- 
son  A  478,  f.  48. 

1  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  5540,  f.  61.  In  his  Discourse  and  View  of  Vir- 
ginia, Governor  Berkeley  especially  emphasized  the  importance  of  coloniza- 
tion in  that  "  those  coinodities  wee  were  wont  to  purchase  at  great  rates  and 
hazards,  wee  now  purchase  at  half  the  usuall  prices.  Nor  is  this  all,  but  we 
buy  them  w*?  our  own  manufactures,  which  here  at  home  employ  thousands 
of  poor  people."    Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  357''. 

2  C.  O.  388/8,  E  31;  Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  2902,  f.  118.  It  should 
be  noted  that  these  statistics  were  not  compiled  in  a  scientific  manner,  and 
should  not  be  used  for  precise  deductions.  It  is  not  even  certain  that 
these  figures  do  not  include  the  entire  colonial  trade  of  England.  The 
great  disparity  between  exports  and  imports  was  due  mainly  to  the  fact  that 
the  value  of  the  imports  included  the  charges  in  bringing  the  colonial 
goods  to  England.  In  addition,  in  the  EngHsh  exports  was  not  included 
the  important  item  of  negro  slaves  sold  to  the  colonies. 

^  They  included  a  great  variety  of  goods  —  textiles,  medicines,  provisions, 
liquors,  books,  candles,  instruments,  tools,  hardware,  clothing,  etc.  Details, 
with  the  exact  quantities  exported  from  England  during  the  years  1662- 
1663  and  1668-1669,  may  be  found  in  B.  T.  Trade  Papers  4. 


r 


II 


40 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


insignificant,  and  their  economic  importance  was  still  further 
diminished  by  the  fact  that  they  included  a  considerable 
proportion   of  foreign   goods   reexported  from    England.^ 

1  This  has,  however,  been  questioned.  W.  R.  Scott,  op.  cit.  I,  p.  266. 
In  1678,  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  reported  that  "ships  bound 
from  England  to  the  plantacons  do  usually  Carry  great  Quantities 
of  all  English  Manufactures  &  Comodities  as  also  Considerable  quantities 
of  forreign  Goods  imported  into  England,  whereof  halfe  of  the  Custome 
upon  Exportacon  againe  remaynes  to  the  King."  C.  O.  1/40,  60 ;  C. 
O.  324/4,  ff.  56-58.  In  1680,  a  pessimistic  writer,  with  a  marked  tend- 
ency to  exaggeration,  complained  that  as  a  result  of  "the  insufficiency 
of  our  home-Manufactures,  and  the  growing  Luxury  of  our  Planters  we  are 
forced  to  send  vast  quantities  (of  foreign  goods)  thither  already,  particularly, 
foreign  Linnens  of  all  sorts,  Paper,  Silks,  and  Wines  of  all  sorts,  Brandies,  and 
other  things  mentioned  in  the  next  Section,  besides  great  quantities  of  Wines 
sent  from  the  Madera's,  paid  by  Bills  of  Exchange  drawn  on  our  Merchants 
in  Lisbon"  Britannia  Languens  (London,  1680),  pp.  163,  164.  In  the  first 
decade  of  the  following  century,  a  writer  stated :  "Nor  is  there  any  Sort  of 
Goods  of  our  own  Growth  or  Make  or  from  abroad,  but  they  are  Exported 
to  Some  or  other  of  your  Majesties  Plantations."  Brit.  Mus.,  Lansdowne 
MSS.  691,  f.  61^.    See  also  Bodleian,  Rawhnson  MSS.  A  478,  f.  48. 


Tobacco 
Sugar:  brown 
white 
Cotton-wool 
Ginger    .     . 
Cacao     .    . 
Beaver    .    . 
Otter      .     . 
Buff-hides   . 
Indigo     .     . 
Fustic     .     . 
Lignum-vitae 
Tortoise-shell 
Granadilla   . 


Imports  into  England 


From  Sept.  29,  1662  to 
Sept.  29,  1663 


7,367,140 

130,000 

16,000 

7,500 
2,000 

1,200 

14,600 

4,278 

4,202 

14,000 

4,334 
1,088 

2,896 

144 


lbs. 

cwt. 

cwt. 

bags 

cwt. 

cwt. 

skins 

skins 

lbs. 

cwt. 

cwt. 

lbs. 

cwt. 


From  Sept.  29, 1668  to 
Sept.  29,  1669 


9,026,046  lbs. 

166,776  cwt. 

23,720  cwt. 

6,472  bags 

3,318  cwt. 

2,264  cwt. 

13,900  skins 

6,271  skins 

5,276 
16,000  lbs. 
4,420  cwt. 
1,042  cwt. 
3,292  lbs. 
skins  £92  =  12  =  2. 


B.  T.  Trade  Papers  4. 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD 


41 


England's  Imports 

England's  Exports 

FROM  THE  Colonies 

TO  Trkm 

Sept.  29,  1696  to  do.  1697      .... 

£588,502 

£289,271 

Sept.  29,  1697  to  do.  1698      .    . 

866,933 

771,235 

Sept.  29,  1698  to  Xmas,  1698 

170,34s 

239,378 

Xmas,  1698  to  Xmas,  1699    .     , 

916,191 

748,029 

Xmas,  1699  to  Xmas,  1700    . 

1,226,701 

682,414 

Xmas,  1700  to  Xmas,  1701    . 

1,049,804 

692,401 

Xmas,  1 701  to  Xmas,  1702    . 

813,756 

444,809 

These  figures  do  not  include  Newfoundland. 

House  of  Lords  MSS.  (1699-1702),  IV,  pp.  434,  435;  C.  O.  388/9,  F.  61. 
These  figures  are  also  available  in  more  detailed  form  in  Sir  Charles  Whit- 
worth,  op.  cit.  Part  I,  pp.  1-6. 

*  See  footnote  i  on  p.  42. 


The  relatively  large  imports  were  virtually  entirely  composed 
of  tobacco  and  sugar,  the  northern  colonies  contributing 
nothing  but  a  few  skins  and  furs.-^  During  the  following 
decades  the  imports  into  England  still  continued  to  be  ' 
greatly  in  excess  of  the  exports,  though  the  disparity  was  \ 
decreasing.  For  the  six  years  from  1683  to  1688,  the  average 
annual  amoimts  were  estimated  at  respectively  £950,000 
and  £350,000.^  At  the  beginning  of  the  new  century,  the 
discrepancy,  though  still  noteworthy,  had  still  further  de- 
creased, the  average  imports  being  £995,288  as  opposed 
to  exports  of  £737,284.' 

An  analysis  of  this  trade  for  one  or  two  years  *  will  disclose 
a  curiously  instructive  state  of  afifairs.  Of  England's  total 
colonial  trade  of  £1,638,086  in  the  year  1697-1698  about 

^  See  footnote  2  on  p.  40. 
2  Davenant,  op.  cit.  II,  p.  218. 

^  These  are  the  averages  for  the  4  years  and  3  months  from  Sept.  29, 
1697,  to  Christmas,  1701.    C.  O.  388/17,  N  239. 


( 


42 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


.  I 


seven-eighths,  £1,420,207,  was  with  the  sugar  and  tobacco 
colonies/  The  trade  with  the  northern  continental  colo- 
nies—  New  England,  New  York,  and  Pennsylvania  — 
amounted  to  only  £172,191,  less  than  11  per  cent  of  the 


Sept.  29,  1697  to 
Sept.  29,  1698 

Christmas  1698  to 
Christmas  1699 

Imports  into 
England  from 

Exports  from 
England  to 

Imports  into 
England  from 

Exports  from 
England  to 

Barbados 

Nevis 

Antigua 

Montserrat 

Jamaica 

308,089 

54,748 

52,903 
24,421 

189,566 

146,849 

14,547 
20,756 

3,369 
120,774 

273,947 
74,857 

109,440 
23,162 

174,844 

150,968 

16,477 

30,435 

7,159 
136,690 

629,727 

306,295 

656,250 

341,720 

Virginia  and  Maryland   .    . 

174,052 

310,133 

198,115 

205,074 

803,779 

616,428 

854,365 

546,803 

Bermudas 

Bahamas        

Hudson  Bay 

Carolina 

Pennsylvania 

New  York 

New  England 

2,926 
184 

8,031 
9,265 
2,720 

8,763 
31,254 

3,970 

2,852 
18,460 
10,701 
25,278 

93,475 

58 

4,235 
12,362 

4,540 
16,818 
26,660 

1,330 
302 

944 
11,399 
17,062 

42,781 

127,277 

Totals 

866,922 

771,164 

919,038 

747,898 

House  of  Lords  MSS.  (1699-1702),  IV,  pp.  446,  447;  B.  T.  Trade 
Papers  1 5,  f .  267 ;  Whitworth,  loc.  cit.  The  slight  discrepancies  between  this 
table  and  the  preceding  one  are  due  to  the  omissions  of  the  fractions  of  a 
pound  and  to  insignificant  errors  on  the  part  of  the  original  compiler. 

2  The  exports  to  Virginia  and  Maryland  were  abnormally  large  in  order 
to  supply  the  deficiency  of  European  suppUes  resulting  from  the  war  which 
ended  in  1697.  In  1696-1697  these  exports  were  only  £58,796  and  in  1698- 
1699  £205,074.  It  was  only  toward  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century 
that  these  exports  normally  reached  this  figure  of  £300,000.  Whitworth, 
op.  cit.  Part  I,  pp.  1-6,  51-56. 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD 


43 


total.  Of  this  amount,  the  exports  were  £129,454,  which 
while  not  an  insignificant  quantity,  was  by  no  means  an  impos- 
ing one.  Without  taking  into  account  the  slaves  purchased, 
Jamaica  alone  afforded  just  as  big  a  market.  The  imports 
were  only  £42,737  and  moreover  consisted  in  part  of  tobacco, 
sugar,  and  other  West  Indian  produce.^  Furthermore,  this 
small  trade  with  the  northern  continental  colonies  between 
Maryland  and  Canada  employed  but  Uttle  English  shipping. 
Of  the  226  ships  sailing  from  England  for  the  colonies  in 
1 690-1 69 1,  only  eight  were  bound  for  these  colonies.^    Their 

^  An  analysis  of  the  figures  for  1 698-1 699  affords  essentially  the  same 
result. 

The  total  colonial  trade  amounted  to £1,666,936 

That  with  the  sugar  colonies  was £     997,979  (60%—) 

That  with  the  tobacco  colonies  was £     403,189  (24%+) 

That  with  Pennsylvania,  New  York,  and  New  England 

was £    235,138    (14%+) 

That  with  the  remaining  colonies  was £     30,630      (2%—) 

£1,666,936  (100%) 

2  In  order  that  the  navy  should  not  suffer  for  want  of  seamen,  during 
time  of  war  permission  had  to  be  secured  by  mercantile  vessels  before  de- 
parting from  England.  The  following  table  of  ships  allowed  to  sail,  dated 
Dec.  2,  1690,  is  of  considerable  interest: 


Destination 


Virginia  and  Maryland 

Barbados 

Leeward  Isles      .    .    . 

Jamaica 

Bermudas 

New  England      .    .    . 
Pennsylvania      .    .    . 


No.  OF  Ships 


103 
71 

23 
20 

I 

7 

I 


226 


Tonnage 


13,715 
9,198 

1,710 

2,720 

20 

60 


27,963 


No.  OF  Seamen 


1,188 
761 
205 

237 

5 

77 


2,479 


f|i 


44 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


J 


commercial  insignificance  from  the  imperial  standpoint 
would  be  still  further  emphasized  if  in  the  total  of  the 
colonial  trade  were  included,  as  might  legitimately  be,  the 
Enghsh  exports  to  Africa  and  the  number  of  ships  employed 
in  carrying  slaves  to  the  plantation  colonies.^ 

From  this  brief  analysis  of  England's  colonial  trade  it  is 
apparent  that  the  northern  continental  colonies  in  no  degree 
conformed  to  the  ideal  type  and  to  virtually  no  extent  con- 
tributed any  of  the  advantages  expected  from  colonization. 
The  favor  with  which  the  plantation  type  of  colony  was 
regarded  for  other  reasons  was  inevitably  greatly  strength- 
ened by  these  facts.    As  this  had  important  consequences 

C.  O.  324/5*  f.  150.  See  also  B.  T.  Trade  Papers  12,  ff.  58,  90.  The 
figures  for  the  following  year  give  the  same  general  result : 

West  Indies  95  ships  with  1858  men 

Virginia  and  Maryland  76  ships  with  1241  men 

New  England  and  New  York    6  ships  with    107  men 
Other  colonies  17  ships  with  244  men 

194  ships         3450  men 
B.  T.  Trade  Papers  12,  f.  138.    See  also  similar  figures  for  one  month  of 
1681  in  C.  O.  5/1 1 1 1,  ff.  79,  80. 

*  England's  trade  to  Africa 


1696-1697  

1697-1698  

1698-1699  

1699-1700  

1700-1701  

1701-1702  

Whitworth,  op.  cit.  Part  I,  pp.  1-6. 


Imports 


£  6,615 

2,496 

19,225 

26,888 

21,074 

31,295 


Exports 


£  13,435 
70,587 
96,295 

155,793 

133,499 
96,052 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD 


45 


both  on  the  economic  and  on  the  political  policy  toward 
these  dependencies,  an  account  of  contemporary  thought  on 
this  subject  should  [prove  instructive.  Those  who  were 
interested  in  developing  the  resources  of  the  West  Indies 
were  naturally  especially  vehement  in  urging  the  cause  of 
tropical  colonization.  The  general  argument  was  clearly 
expressed  in  a  memorial  ^  sent  in  167 1  to  the  Council  of 
Foreign  Plantations  by  one  Andrew  Orgill,  who  had  lived  in 
Barbados  and  subsequently  became  a  prominent  citizen  of 
Jamaica.^  He  divided  the  existing  colonies  into  two  distinct 
classes,^  of  which  one  is  "already,  and  will  dayly  grow  more 
destructive  to  the  trade  of  this  Kingdome,^^  because  those 
colonies  belonging  to  it  do  not  produce  sufficient  commodi- 
ties different  from  those  of  England,  so  as  "to  imploy  the 
people  that  live  there,  but  are  forced  to  use  our  Trade  to 
subsist  by."  The  other  group  supply  such  commodities  as 
cannot  be  produced  in  England,  and  if  encouraged  will  be  of 
infinite  advantage,  "because  they  are,  as  it  were,  new  Trades 

IB.  T.  Journals  124  (Miscellanies,  1664-1674),  ff.  19-23. 

^  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  129;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  521;  C.  C.  1677-1680, 
PP-  55,  58,  146.  OrgiU  was  the  inventor  of  a  successful  device  for  extract- 
ing the  juice  from  the  sugar  cane.  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  647 ;  Cal.  Dom.  1675- 
1676,  p.  493 ;  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  p.  104. 

'  The  anonymous  author  of  a  letter  written  in  1673  to  Sir  Robert  Howard, 
on  the  subject  of  securing  and  improving  the  colonial  trade,  divided  the 
colonies  into  four  groups :  (i)  such  whose  produce  is  the  same  as  that  of 
Europe  and  which  consequently  are  "diametrically  opposite  to  the  Interest 
of  England";  (2)  the  tobacco  plantations,  whence  is  imported  nearly  all 
the  tobacco  consumed  in  England,  and  in  whose  interest  "wee  are  so  zealous 
as  to  prevent  the  growth  thereof  even  in  England  " ;  (3)  the  not  very  impor- 
tant cotton,  indigo,  ginger,  and  cacao  colonies;  (4)  the  sugar  colonies. 
C.  O.  1/30,  10. 


I  I 


I 


}l 


r 


46 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD 


found  out  to  employ  great  numbers  of  people."  ^  Conse- 
quently, Orgill  argued,  colonies  of  the  first  class  —  such  as 
New  England,  which  has  the  same  products  as  England  and 
competes  with  her,  which  builds  ships  and  is  bound  to  engage 
in  manufacturing  —  should  be  discouraged,  while  those  of  the 
other  type  should  be  fostered.  This  "may  draw  the  In- 
habitants from  the  first  to  this  other,  which  if  effected  must 
be  of  infinite  advantage  to  the  trade  and  Navigation  of  this 
Kingdome."  ^ 

1  These  colonies  "must  be  Supplyed  with  Clothes,  and  all  kind  of  our 
Manifactoryes  from  hence,  because  their  Countries  are  not  capable  of  pro- 
ducing them,  but  of  other  rich  Comodities  gained  with  lesse  Labour,  which 
will  beget  great  employment  for  his  Maj"f  Subjects  here,  and  our  Mer- 
chant shipps  to  export  our  Comodities  to  them,  and  import  theirs  to  us." 

2  Orgill  predicted  that,  as  their  population  increased,  Virginia  and  Mary- 
land would  become  like  New  England,  because  the  over-production  of 
tobacco  would  force  them  to  build  ships  and  set  up  manufactures  to  clothe 
themselves.     "Tobacco,"  he  said,  "sometimes  will  doe  noe  more  then  pay 
the  duty,  and  charge  of  bringing  it  to  the  market,  therefore,  they  must 
eyther  become  very  poor,  or  remove  to  a  better  place,  or  sett  up  our  Trades 
and  Manifactures  for  their  Subsistance."    In  order  to  prevent  the  increase 
of  the  continental  colonies,  he  urged  that  inducements  be  offered  to  their 
people  to  remove  to  Jamaica,  which  produces  "many  very  rich  Comodities 
that  grow  not  in  Europe."    He  said  that  fifteen  hundred  to  sixteen  hundred 
people  in  New  England  were  ready  to  settle  in  Jamaica,  provided  liberty  of 
conscience  were  assured  to  them.    The  author  of  a  contemporary  "Treatise 
to  prove  England  by  its  Trade  and  Commerce  equivalent  in  Wealth  and 
Strength  to  a  far  greater  Territory"  pointed  out  that  in  New  England 
were  large  numbers  of  able-bodied  EngHshmen  employed  chiefly  in  the 
lowest  form  of  agriculture,  the  breeding  of  cattle,  and  that  Ireland  could 
have  contained  aU  these  people.    The  other  colonies,  he  said,  while  they  do 
indeed  plant  commodities  which  will  not  grow  so  well  in  England,  weaken 
themselves  by  Hving  too  scattered  and  grasping  at  more  land  than  wiU 
suffice  to  produce  "said  Exotics."    As  to  the  people  of  New  England,  he 
added,  "I  can  but  wish  they  were  transplanted  into  old  England  or  Ireland 


47 


Similar  ideas  were  embodied  in  a  memorial  ^  presented  to 
the  government  in  1674  by  Ferdinando  Gorges,  who,  in 
addition  to  his  inherited  rights  to  Maine,  had   important 
interests  in  the  West  Indies.    As  a  member  of  that  active 
and  influential,  and  to  a  great  extent  unique,  body,  the  Com- 
mittee of  Gentlemen  Planters  of  Barbados  in  London,  his 
expressed   opinions   were   naturally   somewhat   tinged   by 
personal  bias.    In  this  memorial  he  laid  down  the  general 
rule,  that  "such  plantations  as  are  settled  uppon  the  Con- 
tinent of  America  or  large  Islands  which  doe  Swallow  upp 
greate  numbers  of  people  and  by  reason  of  Vast  Tracts  of 
Land  are  able  to  produce  Both  food  and  Rayment  for  thire 
livelyhood  &  requireth  neither  from  their  Mother  Nation 
are   Doubtless   rather   Injurious   then   profitable   to   this 
Kingdome.''    Leaving  the  general  for  the  particular,  he 
pointed  out  that  these  objections  did  not  apply  to  Bar- 
bados  and   the   Caribbee   Islands;    for   Barbados,   being 
managed  by  about  5000  Englishmen,  who  had  purchased 
70,000  negroes,  is  suppUed  with  "a  great  part  of  their 
Provisions  &  all  their  Clothing  household  stufiFe  horses  & 
necessaries  from  England  to  the  Value  of  aboue  Three  hun- 
dred Thousand  pounds  p  ann.''     Furthermore,  these  few 
EngHshmen  give  employment  to  200  ships  and  6000  sea- 
men, and  together  with  the  other  West  Indian  colonies 
send  yearly  to  England  a  native  commodity,  sugar,  worth 

(according  to  proposalls  of  their  owne  made  w^in  these  20  yeares)."  Brit. 
Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  22,781,  ff.  29,  30.  This  statement,  in  the  same  words, 
can  also  be  found  in  England's  Guide  to  Industry  (London,  1683),  p.  78. 

^  C.  0. 1/31,  21 ;  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  490 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674, 
PP-  564,  565. 


1 1  'I 


i^M 


'ill 


i 


48 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


£600,000,  "a  great  part  whereof  is  yearly  exported  which 
is  no  small  help  to  the  Ballance  of  Trade  of  this  Nation." 
Moreover,  he  continued,  England's  trade  to  Africa  depends 
entirely  on  these  colonies.  Gorges's  inevitable  conclusion 
from  these  premises  was  that  only  colonies  of  the  plantation 
type  should  be  encouraged. 

The  same  views,  though  generally  in  a  less  extreme  form, 
were  presented  by  the  economic  writers  of  the  day.^  In 
his  celebrated  essay  on  trade.  Sir  Josiah  Child  asserted  that 
"New-England  is  the  most  prejudicial  Plantation  to  this 
Kingdom,''  because  its  inhabitants  produce  the  same  com- 
modities as  England  and  compete  with  her  in  the  fisheries. 
Besides,  England  buys  from  them  only  a  few  great  masts, 
some  furs  and  train-oil,  whose  yearly  value  is  small,  the  bulk 
of  the  imports  from  New  England  consisting  of  sugar,  cotton, 
and  tobacco  obtained  from  the  other  colonies  in  return  for 
provisions  which  otherwise  would  be  furnished  by  the' 
mother  country .^  Similarly,  in  his  valuable  account  of 
the  colonies,^  published  in  1690,  Dalby  Thomas  pointed  out 
that  New  England  did  not  plant  any  American  commodities, 
except  for  their  own  use,  but  "by  Tillage,  Pasture,  Fishing, 
Manufactures  and  Trade,  they,  to  all  Intents  and  Purposes 

1  According  to  one  writer,  "the  Southern  Plantations  are  the  most  ad- 
vantageous to  us.  .  .  .  For  our  North  Colonies,  as  those  of  New  England, 
and  the  rest  afiFord  only  such  Commodities  as  we  have  our  selves,  and  so 
breed  no  good  Commerce."  Carew  Reynell,  The  True  English  Interest 
(London,  1674),  pp.  90,  91.    See  also  p.  33. 

2  Child,  A  New  Discourse  of  Trade  (London,  1693),  pp.  204-208. 

3  Dalby  Thomas,  An  Historical  Account  of  the  Rise  and  Growth  of 
the  West-India  Colonies  (London,  1690),  in  Harleian  Miscellany  II,  p. 
360. 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD  49 

imitate  Old  England,  and  did  formerly  much,  and  in  some 
Degree  do  now,  supply  the  other  Colonies  with  Provisions 
in  Exchange  for  their  Commodities.  .  .  .  But  this  cannot 
chuse  but  be  allowed,  that,  if  any  Hands  in  the  Indies  be 
wrong  employed  for  domestick  Interest,  it  must  be  theirs, 
and  those  other  Colonies,  which  settle  with  no  other  Prospect 
than  the  like  Way  of  Living :  Therefore,  if  any,  such  only 
should  be  neglected,  and  discouraged,  who  pursue  a  Method, 
that  rivals  our  native  Kingdom,  and  threatens,  in  Time,  a 
total  Independency  thereupon.  But,  as  this  cannot  be 
said  of  our  Tobacco  Colonies,  much  less  is  it  to  be  feared 
from  our  Sugar  Plantations." 

John  Cary,i  likewise,  stated  that  of  aU  the  plantations 
New  England  was  of  least  advantage  to  England,  for  its 
inhabitants,  being  industrious,  trade  to  the  rest  of  the  colo- 
nies, which  they  supply  with  provisions  and  other  goods,  and 
in  return  take  their  products  to  foreign  markets  and  thus 
hurt  the  trade  of  England.  To  debar  them  from  this  trade 
in  provisions  to  the  southern  colonies,  he  thought,  would  be 
inadvisable,  but  their  exports  thence  should  be  strictly  con- 
fined to  England.2    By  these  means  England  would  become 

'  Cary,  An  Essay  on  the  State  of  England  in  Relation  to  its  Trade  (Bristol 
1695),  pp.  69,  70.  ' 

2  Another  writer  complained  that  the  northern  colonies  "hinder  Trade 
to  our  Southern  Plantations,  by  supplying  Barbadoes,  Jamaica,  and  the 
rest,  with  such  things  as  we  do :  so  that  they  take  the  bread  out  of  our 
mouths,  and  are  rather  a  disadvantage,  than  advantage  to  us."  Carew 
ReyneU,  The  True  EngHsh  Interest  (London,  1674),  pp.  90,  91.  See  also 
p.  33-  Six  years  later,  it  was  asserted  that  the  Irish  "furnish  our  Foreign 
Flantahons  with  very  much  of  their  Butter,  Cheese,  Clothes,  and  other 
necessanes  of  the  growth  and  product  of  Ireland:  Considering  which,  and 

E 


I 
\ 


f 


■* 

(^ 


\ 


V 


^ 


1/       ■- 


^- 


V*  V        "*;, 


i. 


-7 


50 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


the  centre  of  imperial  trade,  "and  standing  like  the  Sun  in 
the  midst  of  its  Plantations  would  not  only  refresh  them, 
but  also  draw  Profits  from  them." 

Charles  Davenant's  views  were  exceptionally  moderate. 
While  recognizing  the  bad  features  inherent  in  colonies  like 
New  England,  he  maintained  that  the  concomitant  advan- 
tages outweighed  them.  He  admitted  the  truth  of  the  cur- 
rent charge  that  the  northern  colonies  had  drained  England 
of  the  majority  of  those  emigrating,  and  yet  had  yielded 
commodities  of  but  scant  value.  "The  Fact  is  so,"  he  said, 
"but  if  it  were  otherwise,  the  Plantation  Trade  could  not 
perhaps  be  carry'd  on,"  for  the  southern  colonies  cannot  feed 
themselves  and,  especially  during  war,  are  dependent  on  the 
northern  colonies.  It  is  true,  he  further  conceded,  that 
England  could  furnish  these  provisions,  but,  he  added,  per- 
haps only  at  y^^uch  high  prices  as  would  retard  the  develop- 
ment of  the  sugar  colonies.  Besides,  England  exports  to  these 
northern  colonies  all  kinds  of  manufactures,  "  Cloaths,  and 
House-hold  Furniture,  much  oftener  renewed,  and  thrice  as 
good,  as  the  same  Number  of  People  could  afford  to  have  at 
home."  On  the  whole,  his  conclusion  was  that  these  colonies 
were  advantageous,  because,  instead  of  sending  provisions 

that  those  of  New  England  of  late  furnish  the  rest  with  Flower,  Bisket,  Salt, 
Flesh,  Fish  &c.  (all  which  were  formerly  Exported  from  hence)  we  may 
expect  our  Plantation-Trade  for  Sugar,  Tobacco,  &c.  must  ere  long  be  wholly 
driven  with  Exported  Money,  or  with  foreign  Goods  bought  with  Exported 
Money."  For  this  and  other  reasons,  this  pessimistic  writer  concluded  that 
the  colonies  in  general  "may  be  Considered  as  the  true  Grounds  and  Causes 
of  all  our  present  Mischiefs."  Britannia  Languens  (London,  1680),  pp. 
163,  164,  176. 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD  51 

to  the  southern  plantations,  England  was  thus  enabled  to 
send  manufactures  to  the  northern  colonies.^     His  some- 
what negatively  favorable  opmion  of  these  colonies  was, 
however,  made  contingent  upon  one  crucial  factor  —  that 
they  obeyed  the  provisions  of  the  colonial  commercial  code.^ 
Similarly,  in  its  report  of  December  23,  1697,3  the  Board  of 
Trade  caUed  attention  to  the  fact  that  from  the  American 
colonies  were  imported  large  quantities  of  sugar,  tobacco, 
and  other  goods,  exceeding  much  in  value  the  merchandise 
exported  to  them,  and  that  over  one-half  of  these  products 
was  again  exported,  after  having  paid  considerable  duties  in 
England.    In  general,  however,  they  remarked  that  "al- 
tho  the  more  Southern  Colonies  are  much  more  beneficial  to 
England  than  the  Northern,  yet  being  aU  contribute  to  the 
taking  off  great  Quantities  of  Our  WooUen  Goods,  other 
products,  and  handicraft  Wares,  &  to  maintain  and  en- 
crease  Our  Navigation,  and  the  Inhabitants  being  Your 
Majestys  Subjects,  We  humbly  conceive  the  Trade  to  and 
from  those  Colonies  deserves  the  greatest  Encouragement," 
and  wiU  be  advantageous  so  long  as  the  laws  of  trade  and 
navigation  are  obeyed  by  them. 

It  is  thus  apparent  that  the  northern  continental  colonies 
—  Newfoundland  of  course  excepted  —  diverged  radicaUy 

» Charles  Davenant,  op.  cii.  II,  p.  225.    Cf.  pp.  204,  205.    Later  he 
says:     We  hope  'tis  sufficiently  prov'd,  that  the  Plantations  are  Advan- 
tagious   to  England,  and  that  the  Southward  and  Northward  Colonies 
having  such  a  mutual  Dependance  upon  each  other,  aU  Circumstances  con' 
sidered,  are  ahnost  equally  important."    Ibid.  p.  230. 

*  Ibid.  pp.  204-206. 

•  B.  T.  Trade  Papers  23,  ff.  130-170. 


f'. 


'   i(' 


52 


THE   OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


from  the  ideal  type  conceived  by  the  seventeenth-century 
statesmen.    Beyond  some  masts,  a  few  furs,  a  small  quantity 
of  fish-oil  and  some  vessels,  these  colonies  produced  nothing 
to  send  to  England,  with  whom,  on  the  other  hand,  they 
competed  in  a  number  of  directions :  in  the  carrying  trade, 
in  the  fisheries,  and  in  supplying  the  island  colonies  with 
food-stuffs.     While  they  bought  a  considerable  proportion 
of  their  European  manufactures  in  England,  this  quantity 
was  in  itself  not  very  large,  and  it  was  decidedly  a  moot 
question  whether  or  no  this  fact  counterbalanced  the  existing 
manifest  disadvantages.    Hence  EngHsh  statesmen  looked 
askance  at  the  development  of  New  England.    Moreover, 
its  poHtical  recalcitrancy  and  disinclination  to  conform  to 
the  imperial  commercial  code  imposed  many  irksome  prob- 
lems ;  and,  even  if  these  were  settled  in  accordance  with  the 
wishes  of  the  Enghsh  government,  the  ensuing  advantage 
was  problematical.    No  matter  what  the  outcome,  England 
according  to  the  current  view  seemed  bound  to  lose.    New 
England  did  not  fit  into  the  colonial  scheme.     Its  entire  elim- 
ination from  the  globe  would  probably  have  been  welcomed. 
Yet,  for  many  reasons,  England  could  not  afford  to  let 
thenorthem  continental  colonies  renounce  their  allegiance. 
Under  the  prevailing  conditions,  poHtical  independence  was 
for  these  colonies  an  impossibility ;   freedom  from  England 
inevitably  implied  subjection  to  some  other  European  power, 
in  this  instance  France.     To  England  this  would  have  meant 
an  incalculable  loss  of  prestige,  and  moreover,  as  a  French 
colony.  New  England  would  have  been  an  even  more  vexa- 
tious thorn  in  the  side  of  the  Empire,  rendering  insecure 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD     .         53 

the  invaluable  possessions  to  the  north  and  south  —  New- 
foundland, the  nursery  of  seamen,  and  the  tobacco  colonies, 
Maryland  and  Virginia.  Thus  England  clung  to  this  region, 
and  even  sanctioned  its  further  settlement,  not  for  any 
clearly  defined  economic  advantages,  but  in  order  to  obviate 
the  greater  negative  losses  resulting  from  its  domination 
by  others. 

At  the  Restoration  m  1660,  the  EngHsh  Empire  was  com- 
posed of  several  distinx:t  groups  of  colonies,  separated  by 
large  primeval  tracts,  stretching  along  the  sea-board  from 
Newfoundland    to    Florida.    In    South    America    EngHsh 
colonial  enterprise  was  represented  by  Surinam.    In  addi- 
tion, there  were  in  the  Caribbean  Sea  a  number  of  island 
colonies  whose  resources  were  being  rapidly  exploited.     Far- 
ther north  in  the  Atlantic  were  the  Bermudas.     During  the 
Restoration  era,  instead  of  new  acquisitions  being  made  in 
tropical  regions.  Lord  WiUoughby's  colony  of  Surinam  was 
conquered  by  the  Dutch  and  subsequently  ceded  to  them  by 
treaty ;  aU  that  England  secured  in  this  area  was  a  doubtful 
title  to  trade  in  Yucatan.     On  the  other  hand,  on  the  con- 
tinent, while  Nova  Scotia  was  restored  to  France,  the  entire 
region  between  New  England  and  Maryland  was  settled,  and 
also  the  country  south  of  Virginia.    Thus  it  would  appear 
that  in  the  broad  facts  of  territorial  expansion  the  course 
of  events  ran  diametrically  counter  to  the  tendency  toward 
tropical  colonization.    The  favor  with  which  the  plantation 
type  of  colony  was  regarded  apparently  found  only  a  most 
inadequate  expression  in  the  actual  facts  of  colonial  develop- 
ment.   To  a  certain  extent  this  was  true,  for  the  EngHsh 


!•( 


54 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


government  was  unable  to  shape  the  actual  development 
in  accord  with  its  desires.  The  English  Empire  was  prima- 
rily a  product  of  private  initiative.  From  the  very  be- 
ginning there  were  present  in  it  an  inherent  contradiction  of 
purposes  and  two  irreconcilable  tendencies,  which  ultimately 
led  to  the  American  Revolution.  The  colonization  of  New 
England  was  not  the  result  of  a  normal  movement  of  ex- 
pansion, but  was  rather  a  poHtical  and  religious  schism  in  the 
state.  In  consequence  thereof  there  was  planted  on  Ameri- 
can soil  a  group  of  communities  whose  actual  development, 
fostered  by  the  conscious  and  unconscious  aims  of  its  mem- 
bers, tended  steadily  toward  the  formation  of  an  organic 
body  politic  with  interests  distinct  from  those  of  the  Empire. 
This  was  radically  opposed  to  the  aims  of  the  Restoration 
statesmen  and  their  successors. 

But  a  mere  recital  of  the  bald  facts  of  colonial  expansion 
during  the  Restoration,  without  further  examination  of  their 
real  meaning,  tends  to  an  exaggeration  of  the  divergence 
between  the  aims  of  the  government  and  the  actual  results 
accomplished.  The  conquest  of  New  York  from  the  Dutch 
in  1664,  leading  directly  to  the  settlement  of  the  Jerseys  and 
Pennsylvania,  was  imdertaken  by  the  English  government 
partly  for  military  reasons,  in  order  to  consolidate  the  exist- 
ing colonies,  and  partly  also  to  prevent  the  illegal  trading  in 
tobacco  between  the  Dutch  settlements  and  Virginia  and 
Maryland,  which  lessened  the  economic  value  of  these 
colonies  to  England.^    In  other  words,  one  of  the  main 

*  C.  0. 1/44,  59,  fif.  53-55 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  44-49;  C.  C.  1661- 
1668,  nos.  345,  357,  597,  605,  644.    See  post.  Chapter  XII. 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD 


55 


/» 


ideas  underlying  this  enterprise  was  to  secure  to  England 
the  fullest  advantage  from  the  possession  of  these  tobacco 
colonies.  Moreover,  WiUiam  Penn  sought  to  develop  in 
his  dominion  such  commodities  as  England  was  obliged  to 
purchase  in  southern  Europe.  "We  hope,"  he  wrote  in  1685, 
"that  good  skill  in  our  most  Southern  Parts  will  yield  us 
several  of  the  Straights  Commodities,  especially  Oyle,  Dates, 
Figgs,  Almonds,  Raisins  and  Currans."^  In  the  actual 
course  of  imperial  development,  however,  the  most  salient 
fact  at  the  time  was  the  settlement  of  Jamaica  and  the  rapid 
rise  of  that  colony  and  of  the  other  West  Indies  to  great 
wealth  and  prosperity.  Nor  should  it  be  forgotten  that  the 
Carolinas  were  designed  to  be  colonies  of  the  plantation 
pattern,  and  that  in  South  Carolina  ultimately  was  de- 
veloped the  purest  type  of  such  a  colony  that  existed  on 
the  continent. 

In  so  far  as  policy  was  concerned,  apart  from  actual 
achievement,  the  colonization  of  the  Carolinas  was  of  far 
greater  significance  than  the  conquest  of  New  Netherland 
and  its  annexed  territories.  With  a  view  to  furthering  the 
settlement  of  that  region,  the  charter  of  1663  for  a  limited 
period  exempted  certain  products  of  the  proposed  colony 
from  the  English  import  duties.^  The  list  included  silks, 
wines,  currants,  oils,^  and  olives,  products  that  could  be  ob- 

'  A.  C.  Myers,  Narratives  of  Early  Pennsylvania  etc.,  p.  265.  On  this 
subject  and  especially  on  Penn's  attempts  to  introduce  the  production  of 
wine,  see  ibid.  pp.  207,  224,  241,  242,  287,  288. 

*  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  p.  27 ;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  427.  This  exemption 
was  repeated  in  the  charter  of  1665.  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  p.  108 ;  C.  C. 
1661-1668,  no.  loii. 


l^Ji 


I 


w 


56 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL   SYSTEM 


tained  by  England  only  from  the  countries  of  southern 
Europe.  It  was  hoped  that  the  Carolinas  would  free  Eng- 
land from  such  dependence  on  foreigners.  Here  again  is 
manifest  the  stress  that  was  laid  on  the  colony  as  a  source 
of  supply.^ 

To  the  men  of  the  day  the  very  idea  of  uncontrolled  com- 
merce was  totally  foreign,  and  as  the  colonies  to  the  extent 
that  they  drew  upon  the  population  of  England  were  re- 
garded as  evils  to  be  countenanced  only  in  return  for  greater 
compensating  advantages,  it  followed  that  a  system  of  regu- 
lations would  be  created  to  secure  these  benefits  to  the 
metropolis.     This  relation  is  clearly  expressed  in  the  oft- 
quoted  words  of  Sir  Josiah  Child.    It  was  in  connection 
with  his  discussion  of  emigration,  wherem  he  adhered  to  the 
current  view,  that  he  said :  "  AU  Colonies  and  foreign  Planta- 
tions do   endamage   their  Mother-Kingdom,  whereof   the 
Trades  of  such  Plantations  are  not  confined  to  their  said 
Mother  Kingdom  by  good  Laws  and  severe  Execution  of 
those  Laws. "2    in  a  similar  strain,  John  Cary  wrote  to  a 
correspondent :  "Please  to  note  that  aU  Plantations  settled 
abroad  out  of  our  own  People  must  needs  be  a  Loss  to  this 
Kingdome  except  they  are  imployed  there  to  Serve  its 

^  In  order  to  obtain  settlers,  the  patentees  turned  to  Barbados,  stating 
that  it  was  not  the  purpose  of  the  new  colony  to  raise  sugar  or  tobacco, 
but  wine,  oil,  currants,  raisins,  silk,  etc.,  "by  means  whereof  the  money  of 
the  nation  that  goes  out  for  these  things  wilbe  Keept  in  the  Kinges  Do- 
minions and  the  planting  part  of  the  people  imploy  there  time  in  planting 
those  comodyties  that  wiU  not  injure  nor  overthrow  the  other  plantations." 
So.  Ca.  Hist.  Soc.  CoU.  V,  pp.  13, 14;  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  pp.  46,  47 ;  C.  C. 
1661-1668,  no.  547. 

^  Child,  op.  cii.  p.  183. 


THE  COLONIAL  POLICY  OF  THE  PERIOD 


57 


Interest."  ^  It  would  almost  seem  that  the  systematic  com- 
mercial code  of  the  Restoration  era,  which  was  based  on 
the  somewhat  scattered,  though  definite,  predecents  of  the 
former  age,  was  an  inevitable  consequence  of  the  change  in 
attitude  towards  emigration,  in  consequence  of  which  colo- 
nies were  valued  solely  as  sources  of  maritime  and  commer- 
cial strength.  The  nature  of  these  regulations  was  deter- 
mined by  the  current  economic  theory  of  colonization  and 
by  the  ultimate  end  in  view,  which  was  the  creation  of  a 
powerful  self-sufiicient  commercial  empire,  dominating  the 
seas  and  controlling  the  course  of  foreign  exchanges. 

1  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  5540,  f.  61.  This  direct  connection  is  also 
plainly  expressed  in  the  Act  of  167 1,  which  prohibited  the  future  shipment 
of  the  "enumerated  goods"  from  the  colonies  to  Ireland,  because  otherwise 
the  advantages  derived  from  the  possession  of  colonies  would  be  diverted 
from  England,  "although  this  kingdom  hath,  and  doth  daily  suffer  a  great 
prejudice  by  the  transporting  great  number  of  the  people  thereof  to  the 
said  plantations,  for  the  peopHng  of  them."    22  and  23  Ch.  II,  c.  26,  §§  x,  xi. 


; 


CHAPTER  II 

THE   LAWS   OF  TRADE   AND    NAVIGATION  AND   IMPERIAL 

DEFENCE 

The  Navigation  Act  of  1660  — The  Staple  Act  of  1663  —  The  Plantation 
Duties  of  1673 —Scotland  under  these  statutes— Ireland  and  the  colonies 
—  Temporary  dispensations  of  the  laws  —  The  system  of  imperial  de- 
fence —  The  colonial  garrisons  —  The  West  Indian  buccaneers  —  The 
Barbary  pirates. 

Shortly  after  the  reestablishment  of  the  monarchy  in 
England,  Parliament  passed  the  famous  Navigation  Act  of 
1660,  which  was  foUowed  by  so  rapid  a  development  of  the 
English  mercantile  marine,  that  contemporary  writers  with 
feeUngs  of  profound  admiration  termed  it  the  "Sea  Magna 
Charta"!  and  the  "Charta  Maritima."^    This  important 
statute  took  less  than  a  month  to  pass  the  House  of  Com- 
mons,3  there  being  virtuaUy  no  opposition,  since  the  biU  em- 
bodied principles  that  were  then  universaUy  accepted,  and 
which  already  formed  part  of  England^s  traditional  poHcy. 
In  the  first  place,  the  Act  discriminated  in  many  ways 
against  foreign  shipping  and  in  some  specific  instances,  as  in 
the  colonial  trade,  absolutely  prohibited  its  employment.   In 
the  second  place,  the  law  was  designed  to  prevent  foreigners 


p.  92 


Sir  Francis  Brewster,  Essays  on  Trade  and  Navigation  (London,  1695), 


2  Josiah  Child,  op.  cit.  (ed.  1694),  preface  and  p.  112. 
»  Com.  Journal  VIII,  pp.  120,  129,  142,  151,  153. 

58 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


59 


from  securing  the  benefit  of  the  new  sources  of  suppl/ 
opened  up  by  English  colonization. 

The  policy   of  protecting   the  national   shipping  from 
foreign  competition  was  of  most  ancient  date,  and  had 
been   followed  fairly   consistently    s^nce  mediaeval   times. 
It  was  as  far  back  as  the  fourteenth  century,  in  the  reign 
of  Richard   II,  that   the  first  navigation   act  had  been 
passed,  and  during  the  two  following  centuries  a  nimiber 
of  similar  measures  were  enacted.^     Under  the  first  two 
Stuarts  this  poUcy  had  been  somewhat  intermittently  en- 
forced by  royal  orders  and  proclamations,  ^  with  the  distinct 
purpose  of  making  England  a  great  maritime  power.^    During 
the  Commonwealth,  this  poHcy  was  definitely  embodied  in 
the  comprehensive  statute  of  1651.     Subordinate  to  this 
poUcy  of  fostering  the  growth  of  the  national  mercantile  ma- 
rine by  protective  measures,  and  at  the  same  time  a  logical 
outcome  and  an  integral  part  thereof,  was  the  practice  of 
excluding  foreigners  from  trading  with  the  EngHsh  colonies 
and  of  confining  their  export  trade  to  the  metropolis.    Prior 
to  the  Restoration,  these  principles  had  already  been  ap- 
pHed  in  an  unsystematic  manner  to  the  growing  Empire  in 
America  and  the  West  Indies.^     The  Order  in  Council  of 

1  Beer,  Commercial  Policy  of  England  toward  the  American  Colonies,  pp. 
10-13. 

^  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  238-240. 

^In  1635,  the  Venetian  ambassador  in  England  wrote:  "E  massima 
fondamentale  di  Stato  in  Inghilterra,  d'invigilare  sempre  ad  essere  effetti- 
vamente  piu  potente  di  tutt'i  suoi  vicini  sul  mare."  Le  Relazioni  degli 
Stati  Europei,  Serie  IV,  Inghilterra  (Venezia,  1863),  P.  306. 

*  Beer,  Origins,  Chapters  VII,  VIII,  XII. 


6o 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


1621/  prohibiting  Virginia  from  exporting  its  produce  to 
foreign  countries,  was  subsequently  expanded  in  scope  to 
embrace  the  other  colonies,  except  Newfoundland.  In 
1633,  foreigners  were  forbidden  to  trade  in  Virginia,^  and 
by  the  far-reaching  Act  of  1650  they  were  excluded  from 
commercial  intercourse  with  any  and  all  of  the  colonies. 

These  two  closely  related  policies  were  embodied  in  the 
Navigation  Act  of  1660.     Its  fundamental  purpose  was  to 
foster  the  development  of  national  strength  by  an  increase  of 
sea  power  and  commerce.    Inevitably,  it  amounted  to  an  act 
of  economic  warfare  against  the  Dutch.    Despite  their  un- 
derlying racial  sympathies  and  their  common  Protestantism, 
which  had  within  the  memory  of  Uving  man  emerged  victori- 
ous from  a  severe  struggle  with  the  well-organized  and  still 
threatening  forces  of  the  Catholic  Counter-Reformation,  the 
English  and  Dutch  were  engaged  in  one  of  those  bitter 
economic  contests  which  constitute  so  great  a  part  of  modern 
international  history.     In  the  fisheries  of  northern  Europe, 
in  the  trade  to  the  Baltic  which  alone  furnished  the  naval 
stores  that  were  absolutely  indispensable  to  the  maritime 
powers,  in  the  commerce  with  the  spice  islands  of  the  Far 
East  and  with  opulent  India,  in  the  slave-trade  to  Africa 
whose  profits  and  whose  apparent  necessity  dulled  whatever 
moral  aversion  from  the  system  that  otherwise  might  have 
existed,  the  Dutch  had  for  two  generations  stood  directly  in 
the  path  of  England's  ambitious  plans  for  economic  expan- 
sion.    In  addition,  owing  to  lower  freight  rates,  combined 

1  C.  O.  5/1354,  ff-  201,  202 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  48,  49.  ' 

*  P  .  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  192. 


) 


THE  LAWS  OF   TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


61 


with  more  abundant  capital  and  a  more  efficient  system  of 
credit,  the  Dutch  monopolized  to  a  marked  degree  the  carry- 
ing trade  and  to  a  less  extent  the  foreign  commerce  of 
Europe.    Up  to  the  Navigation  Act  of  165 1,  a  considerable 
portion  of  England's  foreign  trade  had  been  carried  in  Dutch 
bottoms.     Moreover,  during  the  anarchy  of  the  Civil  War, 
the  Stuart  regulations  of  colonial  commerce  had  inevitably 
fallen  into  disregard,  and  as  a  result  the  Dutch  merchants 
had  secured  an  alarmingly  large  share  of  the  trade  with  the 
English  tobacco  and  sugar  colonies.^    The  Act  of  1650  had 
to  some  extent  redressed  this  situation,  but  had  not  com- 
pletely ousted  the  Dutch  from  what  all  European  govern- 
ments then  regarded  as  an  exclusive  national  preserve.^    It 
was  thus  inevitable  that  the  Dutch,  as  the  leading  com- 
mercial and  maritime  power,  should  suffer  most  from  the 
protective  measures  embodied  in  the  Navigation  Act  of 
1660.     Shortly  after  its  passage,  on  October  i,  1660,  the 
Venetian  representative  at  the  court  of  Charles  II  wrote 
to  the  Senate  of  his  city-state  that  this  Act  would  affect  ad- 
versely aU  commercial  centres,  but  particularly  HoUand 
and  other  northern  countries,  which  had  the  largest  commerce 
with  England.^ 

In  the  regulation  of  England's  European  trade,  the  Naviga- 
tion Act  of  1660  was  less  rigid  and  stringent  than  had  been 

*  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  352  et  seq. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  388  et  seq. 

'  The  ItaUans,  he  added,  would  be  Httle  afiFected,  "ma  Olandesi,  Danesi, 
et  altri  SettentrionaU  son  H  piu  attacati,  perche  questi  solevano  portare  gran 
parte  deUe  Merci  forestieri,  e  particolarm^^  daU'  Indie."  Venetian  Ar- 
chives, Inghilterra,  Dispacci  al  Senate  50,  no.  257. 


'I 


62 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


its  predecessor  passed  in  1 651.1  By  means  of  prohibitions 
and  discriminating  duties,  embodied  in  two  rather  obscurely 
worded  clauses,  which  were  supplemented  by  other  legis- 

1 12  Ch.  II,  c.  18,  §  viii  provided  that  no  goods  of  the  growth  or  manufac- 
ture of  Russia,  no  masts,  timber  or  boards,  salt,  pitch,  tar,  resin,  hemp,  flax, 
raisins,  figs,  prunes,  oUve-oils,  no  grain  or  com,  sugar,  potashes,  wines,' 
vinegar,  spirits  or  brandy  could  be  imported  into  England  and  Ireland,' 
except  in  ships  belonging  to  the  people  thereof,  whose  master  and  three^ 
quarters  of  whose  crew  were  EngUsh.    Furthermore,  no  currants  or  com- 
modities of  the  Turkish  Empire  could  be  imported  mto  England  and  Ireland 
except  in  Enghsh-built  shipping  navigated  as  above,  or  in  ships  of  the  place 
of  production  or  of  the  ports  whence  the  goods  could  only  or  usuaUy  had 
been  transported.    The  subsequent  clause  somewhat  mitigated  this  pro- 
hibition.   Section  ix  provided  that  aU  wines  of  the  growth  of  France  or 
Germany,  if  imported  in  ships  not  belonging  to  those  places,  should  pay 
ahens'  duties ;  and  similarly,  that  all  Spanish,  Portuguese,  Madeira,  Ca- 
nary wines,  and  aU  the  commodities  mentioned  in  the  preceding  clause  were 
subject  to  the  payment  of  these  additional  duties,  if  imported  in  other 
than  legaUy  navigated  EngHsh  shipping.    These  aliens'  duties,  dating  back 
to  mediaeval  times  (Gerard  Malynes,  Consuetudo,  vel  Lex  Mercatoria  (3d  ed., 
London,  1686),  p.  139 ;  Laws,  Ordinances,  and  Institutions  of  the  Admiralty 
of  Great  Britain  (London,  1767)  I,  p.  307 ;  Atton  and  Holland,  The  King's 
Customs  (New  York,  1908),  pp.  13,  112,  321)  were  considerably  amplified 
by  the  "Old  Subsidy"  of  1660.   (12  Ch.  II,  c.  4,  §§i,  ii  and  the  annexed  Book 
of  Rates.)     They  constituted  a  marked  discrimination  against  foreign 
shipping.    In  1677,  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  reported  that  these 
additional  duties  amounted  "in  a  manner  to  a  prohibition."    (Cal.  Dom. 
1677-1678,  pp.  470, 472.)    Under  these  regulations,  however,  HoUand  could 
stiU  remain  the  entrepot  for  a  large  number  of  European  goods  consumed  in 
England.    Therefore,  it  was  further  provided  in  1662  that  no  wines  other 
than  Rhenish,  no  spicery,  grocery,  tobacco,  potash,  pitch,  tar,  salt,  resin, 
boards,  timber,  oUve-oil  could  be  imported  from  the  Netherlands  or  Germany 
in  any  ship  whatsoever.     (13  &  14  Ch.  II,  *c.  11,  §  xxin.)    The  complexity 
of  these  regulations  naturally  caused  many  difliculties  of  interpretation. 
See  John  Reeves,  History  of  the  Law  of  Shipping  and  Navigation  (Dublin, 
1792)  and  D.  O.  McGovney,  The  Navigation  Acts  as  appUed  to  European 
Trade,  in  Am.  Hist.  Rev.  IX,  pp.  725-734. 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION     6$ 

lation,  English  shipping  was  given  a  marked  advantage  over 
its  competitors  in  the  importation  of  European  commodi- 
ties into  England  and  Ireland.  Furthermore,  foreign  ships 
were  excluded  from  the  EngHsh  and  Irish  coastwise  trades/ 
and  fish  caught  in  such  vessels  was  subjected  to  the  payment 
of  onerous  duties.^ 

In  so  far  as  the  history  of  the  development  of  the  old 
colonial  system  is  concerned,  these  regulations  of  England's 
European,  coasting,  and  fishing  trades  have  only  an  indirect 
importance,  except  in  that  it  was  distinctly  provided  that 
ships  built  in  the  colonies  were  to  enjoy  the  same  privileges 
as  those  of  England  and  Ireland.^    SimHarly,  to  be  legaUy 
navigated,  the  master  and  three-quarters  of  the  crew  had  to 
be  English,  which  term  naturaUy  included  such  subjects 
as  resided  in  the  colonies.    The  Navigation  Act  protected 
and  encouraged  equally  the  domestic  and  the  colonial  mer- 
cantile marine.    This  was  a  cardinal  maxim  in  EngHsh  pol- 
icy, departed  from  in  only  one  insignificant  instance,*  while 

»  The  coast  district  included  Ireland,  England,  Wales,  Berwick-on-Tweed 
Guernsey  and  Jersey.    1 2  Ch.  II,  c.  18,  §  vi.    Wherever  England  is  mentioned 
m  this  exposition  of  the  laws,  the  term  is  intended  to  include  also  Wales 
and  Berwick-on-Tweed. 

2  12  Ch.  II,  c.  18  §  V.    The  provisions  against  foreign  fish  were  made  much 
more  rigorous  by  15  Ch.  II,  c.  7,  §§  xvi,  xvii,  and  18  Ch.  II,  c.  2,  §  ii 
'  12  Ch.  II,  c.  18,  §  vii. 

*  The  Act  of  1673  for  encouraging  the  Greenland  whale  fishery  provided 
that  whale-fins  and  train-oil  caught  and  imported  in  English  ships  were  to 
be  duty  free.  If  imported  and  caught  in  colonial  vessels,  oil  was  to  pay 
6^.  a  ton  and  whale-fins  50^.  If  caught  in  colonial,  but  imported  in  Eng- 
hsh  vessels,  these  duties  were  one-half.  If  caught  in  foreign  vessels,  these 
respective  duties  were  £9  and  £18.  25  Ch.  II,  c.  7,  §  i.  For  the  working  of 
this  act,  see  C.  O.  194/8,  0  46.    At  one  time  also,  an  incorrect  interpreta- 


I 

I 


II 


Ii 


ll 


64 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


a  number  of  the  colonies  persistently  discriminated  against 
English  shipping.^  Thanks  to  this  virtual  parity  of  treat- 
ment, colonial  vessels,  after  taking  their  fish  to  the  Mediter- 
ranean ports,  were  able  to  sail  thence  with  European  products 
to  England. 

As  regards  the  produce  of  the  non-English  parts  of  Amer- 
ica, Africa,  and  Asia,  the  Navigation  Act  provided  that  such 
goods  could  not  be  imported  into  England  or  Ireland  except 
in  English,  Irish,  or  colonial  ships,  legally  navigated,  and 
then  only  from  their  place  of  growth  and  production  or 
from  such  ports  whence  they  had  usually  been  shipped.^ 
A  subsequent  clause  somewhat  modified  this,  and  made  it 
legal  to  import  in  English  vessels  from  Spain  and  Portugal 
the  products  of  the  colonial  possessions  of  these  two  coun- 
tries.^ The  direct  intent  of  this  regulation  was  to  prevent 
the  products  of  the  foreign  colonies,  especially  those  of  the 
Dutch  in  the  Orient,  from  being  imported  into  England 
in  foreign  shipping.  But,  as  English  ships  were  generally 
not  allowed  access  to  these  foreign  possessions,  their  prod- 
uce was  by  these  clauses  virtually  debarred  from  the  Eng- 
lish and  Irish  markets  to  the  manifest  advantage  of  the 
English  colonies.*  - 

tion  of  the  law  threatened  to  a  minor  extent  to  discriminate  against  colonial 
shipping.    See  post^  Chapter  VIII. 

1  See  post,  Chapters  III,  XL 

2  12  Ch.  II,  c.  18,  §§  iii,  iv.    See  also  §§  xii,  xiii. 

'  These  products  could  also  be  imported  from  the  Azores,  Canaries,  and 
Madeiras.    Ihid.  §  xiv. 

*  Under  the  tariff  of  1660,  sarsaparilla  had  to  pay  a  duty  of  2d.  a  pound,  but 
if  imported  directly  from  the  place  of  growth  in  EngUsh  shipping  only  one- 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION  65 

As  regards  the  colonial  trade  proper,  the  Navigation  Act 
provided  that  no  goods  could  be  imported  into  or  exported 
from  any  of  the  English  possessions  in  America,  Africa,  or 
Asia  but  in  vessels  belonging  to  the  people  of  England  or 
Ireland,  or  in  such  as  had  been  built  in  and  belonged  to  "any 
said  plantations. "     The  master  and  at  least  three-quarters 
of  the  crew  of  these  ships  had  to  be  English.^    As  the  ves- 
sels engaged  in  certain  branches  of  England's  European  trade 
had  to  be  of  both  EngKsh  build  and  ownership  in  order  not 
to  incur  the  penalty  of  the  onerous  aHens'  duties,  the  colonial 
trade  was  in  this  respect  somewhat  less  restricted.^    This 

third  of  this  duty  was  payable.  Some  sarsaparilla  was  imported  from  Ja- 
maica, but  it  not  being  clear  that  it  was  of  the  production  of  that  colony, 
the  question  of  the  amount  of  customs  payable  was  submitted  to  Sir  William 
Jones,  Solicitor-General  from  1673  to  1675  and  Attorney-General  from 
1675  to  1679.  Jones  decided  that,  if  this  sarsaparilla  was  not  of  the  growth 
of  Jamaica,  it  must  pay  the  fuU  duties,  on  the  ground  that  America  was  of 
vast  extent,  and  "as  much  Navigation  may  be  used  by  bringing  it  from  one 
part  of  America  to  another  as  from  some  part  of  America  home  "  Brit 
Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  30,218,  ff.  64^  65.  In  1717,  an  EngKsh  ship  imported 
mto  England  some  foreign  colonial  cocoa-nuts  from  New  York  and  Barbados, 
and  the  question  arose  whether  or  no  said  ship  and  the  cocoa-nuts  were  Uable 
to  forfeiture.  The  Attorney-General,  Sir  Edward  Northey,  held  that,  as 
these  cocoa-nuts  were  the  produce  of  the  Spanish  colonies  where  Enghshmen 
were  not  permitted  to  trade,  and  as,  both  before  and  after  1660,  they  had 
always  been  imported  into  England  from  the  EngHsh  colonies,  this  method 
of  importation  was  legal.  Other  authorities  disagreed  with  him,  and  con- 
sidered  the  forfeiture  valid.  Brit.  Mus.,  Hargrave  MSS.  275,  f .  6$"^ ;  Add 
MSS.  8832,  ff.  308,  309. 

'  Under  exceptional  circumstances,  this  provision  as  regards  the  crew  was 
not  ngidly  insisted  upon.    Cf.  Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  11,  ff 
19,  20;  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  Jan.  31,  1677. 

^  For  an  instance  in  1660  of  a  foreign-built  ship  in  the  colonial  trade,  see 
Bnt.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  5489,  f.  61. 


I     > 


ill 


•  «i 


i 


s 


66 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


it 


led  to  some  dissatisfaction/  and  accordingly,  in  1662, 
Parliament  enacted  that  no  foreign-built  ships,  except 
those  bought  before  October  ist  of  that  year,  should 
enjoy  the  privileges  of  an  Enghsh-owned  ship,  although 
navigated  and  owned  by  Englishmen,  but  that  all  these 
vessels  should  be  deemed  alien  and  as  such  their  cargoes 
should  be  subject  to  the  additional  customs  duties.^    This 

^  In  1662,  the  elder  Brethren  of  Trinity  House  were  asked  to  "give  an 
opmion  whether  we  have  ships  enough  of  our  own  to  drive  our  own  trade, 
or  in  case  there  be  not,  what  time  is  fit  to  be  aUowed  for  buying,  or  building 
of  them,  and  whether  they  do  not  esteem  it  advantageous  for  this  nation 
to  forbid  any  foreign  built  ships  after  the  prefixt  time."  They  repHed  that 
the  shipping  of  England  was  more  than  enough  for  carrying  on  the  existing 
trade,  and  that  the  buying  of  foreign  ships  would  be  disadvantageous. 
MSS.  of  Trinity  House  (H.  M.  C.  VIII,  i),  p.  25I^ 

2  13  &  14  Ch.  II,  c.  II,  §  vi ;  Com.  Journal  VIII,  pp.  347,  353,  354,  383, 
384,  390-392;   Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  30,218,  S.  27,  28.     Hence,  while 
foreign-built  vessels  bought  after  1662  could  legaUy  engage  in  the  colonial 
trade,  their  cargoes  had  to  pay  the  aUens'  duties.    See  Northey's  decision  of 
1706,  in  Brit.  Mus.,  Hargrave  MSS.  141,  fiF.  35^  36.    Cf.  also  P.  C.  Cal.  I, 
pp.  824,  825 ;  Va.  Mag.  XX,  p.  250.    The  Staple  Act  somewhat  restricted 
this  right,  providing  that  no  commodiries  of  the  growth  or  production  of 
Europe  could  be  imported  into  the  colonies  except  in  English-built  ships  or 
in  such  as  had  been  bought  before  Oct.  i,  1662.    15  Ch.  II,  c.  7,  §  vi.     For  an 
instance  in  1677  of  the  exaction  of  the  aliens'  duties  on  some  sugars  imported 
from  Barbados  into  London  in  the  ship  Success  of  Bristol,  see  Cal.  Treas. 
Books,  1676-1679,  pp.  62s,  626.    Danby  subsequently  ordered  the  restitution 
of  these  duties,  as  he  intended  to  order  this  vessel  entered  on  the  register  of  free 
ships.    Ibid.    These  duties  were  in  themselves  sufficiently  high  to  drive  prac- 
tically all  unfree  ships  from  the  colonial  trade,  but  in  addition  the  EngUsh 
government  in  1685,  apparently  without  legal  warrant,  ordered  the  seizure  in 
the  colonies  of  "all  vessels  belonging  to  strangers  and  forreine  vesseUs  not 
made  free"  found  trading  there.     C.  O.  324/4,  f.  142 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  II,  p.  81 ; 
C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  27.     See  also  P.  C.  Cal.  II,  pp.  86,  87.    In  1686,  the 
O'Brien,  an  Irish  ship  bound  for  Jamaica,  was  seized  on  the  high  seas  and 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


67 


provision  practically  barred  all  foreign  ships  purchased 
after  1662  from  the  colonial  trade,  though  in  some  instances 
the  owners  were  able  to  induce  the  government  to  place  them 
on  the  free  list.^  Ships  purchased  by  the  colonies  from  for- 
eigners were  also  treated  as  unfree,  and  no  provision  was 
made  for  naturalizing  alien  vessels  condemned  in  the  colonial 
courts.^ 

subsequently  condemned  in  the  Nevis  Admiralty  Court  as  an  unfree  bottom. 
At  the  trial  unanswerable  evidence  was  introduced  to  the  effect  that  the 
vessel  had  originally  been  of  foreign  build,  but  that  it  had  been  rebuilt  in 
Ireland.  According  to  the  owner's  statement  she  was  "not  a  free  ship  although 
in  Reallity  ought  to  be,  being  Cast  away  in  this  Countrey  (Ireland)  and  Re- 
built here."  C.  O.  1/57,  51 ;  C.  0. 1/58,  83i-viii ;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  257, 
263,  264.  As  a  result  of  these  conditions,  the  nimiber  of  foreign-built  ships 
engaged  in  the  colonial  trade  steadily  decreased.  Of  5 1  ships  loading  enumer- 
ated commodities  in  Barbados  from  April  14,  1678,  to  Oct.  14,  1679,  as  many 
as  12  were  of  foreign  build.  Of  115  ships  entering  in  the  same  colony  from 
March  25, 1688,  to  June  25, 1688,  only  5  were  foreign-built.  All  the  55  vessels 
entering  there  from  Aug.  12, 1690,  to  Nov.  12, 1690,  were  Enghsh-built.  C.  O. 
33/13,  nos.  I  et  seq.  The  legal  difficulty  was  definitely  settled  by  the  adminis- 
trative statute  of  1696,  which  absolutely  debarred  foreign-built  vessels  from 
the  colonial  trade.  7  &  8  W.  Ill,  c.  22,  §  ii.  A  complaint  made  at  that  time 
against  this  specific  provision  of  the  new  law  indicates  clearly  that  such  ships 
were  still  to  some  extent  employed  in  the  colonial  trade.  House  of  Lords 
MSS.  (1695-1697)  II,  p.  233. 

1  On  Nov.  24,  1685,  Treasurer  Rochester  ordered  the  Commissioners  of 
Customs  to  continue  in  force  the  warrants  that  Charies  II  had  issued  to 
a  number  of  ships  exempting  their  cargoes  from  the  ahens'  duties,  as  their 
withdrawal  would  be  very  injurious  to  the  plantation  trade.  Treas.  Books, 
Out-Letters,  Customs  10,  ff.  74,  75. 

2  In  1672,  Sir  Charies  Wheler  wrote  to  the  Council  of  Trade  that  the 
Dutch  derived  good  profits  from  seUing  shallops  to  the  Leeward  Islands,  of 
which  he  was  Governor,  and  that  the  Act  of  Navigation  obliged  him  to 
seize  such  vessels  without  giving  him  any  power  to  naturalize  them  after 
condemnation.  C.  O.  1/28,  9 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  328.  In  1683,  a  Scotch 
vessel  trading  to  Pennsylvania  was  seized  and  condemned  in  Pennsylvania. 


68 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


l! 


f 


As  the  lack  of  such  a  provision  was  found  highly  in- 
convenient, a  custom  estabHshed  itself  in  some  of  the  colo- 
nies, especially  in  Jamaica,  of  considering  foreign-built 
vessels  condemned  in  Lie  local  admiralty  courts  and  subse- 
quently bought  by  Englishmen  as  "free  in  aU  parts  between 
the  Tropicks/'i  When  this  matter  was  brought  to  the 
attention  of  the  EngUsh  government,  it  was  referred  to  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Customs,  who  reported  in  1687  that 
this  practice  was  without  any  legal  warrant  and  that  such 
certificates  of  freedom  as  had  been  issued  by  the  Governor 
of  Jamaica  should  be  revoked.^    Though  contrary  to  the 

Its  new  owners  then  imported  in  it  into  England  some  sugar  and  molasses 
from  Barbados  and,  subsequently,  a  cargo  of  lumber  from  Norway  The 
Enghsh  customs  officials  seized  the  vessel  as  forfeited  under  the  Act  of  Navi- 
gation. But  on  the  protest  of  the  owners,  it  was  discharged  on  payment  of 
the  ahens'  duties  on  the  cargoes  of  both  voyages.  Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters 
Customs  10,  ff.  177,  178.  ' 

1  In  1686,  Lieutenant-Governor  Molesworth  of  Jamacia  wrote  that  this 
was  a  "long  aUow'd  practice,"  in  whose  favor  much  could  be  said,  and  that 
a  Certificat  vnder  the  Gov?  hand  &  seal  of  the  Island  (according  ye  vsuaU 
form)  hath  been  for  many  years  accounted  among  vs  a  tantamount  to  the 
making  of  a  Ship  free  in  all  parts  between  the  Tropicks."  C  O  i^8/q 
ff.  199-219;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  272-275.  ' 

^  In  1686,  Captain  Talbot  of  H.  M.  S.  Falcon  had  seized  such  a  ship 
as  unfree.  This  vessel  had  originaUy  come  from  Cadiz  to  Jamaica  where 
It  was  condemned  in  the  Admiralty  Court.  It  was  then  purchased 
by  some  local  merchants  and  was  used  in  the  logwood  trade  between 
Jamaica  and  Campeachy.  On  the  trial  of  Talbot's  seizure,  the  Judge  of  the 
Jamaica  Admiralty  Court  on  a  technical  legal  point,  not  germane  to  the  ques- 
Uon  here  under  discussion,  ordered  the  release  of  the  vessel  and  its  cargo. 
Captam  Talbot  appealed  to  England/and  in  1687  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Customs  reported  on  this  case  that,  by  coUusion  and  fraud,  foreign-built 
ships  were  thus  made  free  in  the  colonies.  On  information  mainly  derived 
from  Molesworth's  despatches,  they  further  stated  that  foreign  ships  were 


I 


'  il 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


69 


letter  of  the  law,  vessels  in  distress  belonging  to  friendly 
foreign  nations  were,  however,  allowed  to  refit  in  the  Eng- 
lish colonies  and  to  purchase  there  such  suppHes  as  were 
indispensable,  as  well  as  to  sell  sufficient  goods  to  cover 
these  expenses.^  The  penalty  imposed  upon  unfree  bot- 
toms trading  to  the  colonies  was  forfeiture  of  the  vessel 
and  its  cargo  as  well.^    To  render  these  regulations  more 

• 

tried  in  the  colonial  courts  on  the  information  of  the  owner ;  they  were  then 
condemned  and  appraised  at  an  exceedingly  low  valuation.  Of  this  amount 
the  owner,  as  informer,  was  entitled  to  one- third  and  to  him  also  the  Governor 
ceded  his  third.  Thus  these  ships  were  made  free  within  the  tropics  by  pay- 
ing to  the  Crown  only  one-third  of  an  exceedingly  low  appraisal.  The  Com- 
missioners then  pointed  out  that  this  distinction,  that  is  of  freedom  within  the 
tropics  and  not  elsewhere,  was  without  any  legal  basis,  and  advised  that 
such  certificates,  of  which  they  understood  about  twenty  were  outstanding, 
be  called  in,  but  only  slowly  so  as  not  to  dislocate  the  logwood  trade  of 
Jamaica.  C.  0. 138/5,  ff.  199-219, 326-333 ;  C.  0. 1/58,  64, 641 ;  C.  0. 1/60, 
28,  40,  4oi;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  255,  272-275,  303,  356,  357,  361. 

1  A  provision  to  this  effect  was  usually  introduced  in  the  international 
treaties.  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  383,  384;  Haring,  The  Buccaneers  in  the 
West  Indies,  p.  197.  In  the  instructions  issued  in  1663  to  Governor  Wil- 
loughby  of  Barbados  was  a  clause  permitting  the  giving  of  "Wood  and  Water 
and  such  Ships  provision,  as  the  Subjects  of  any  Nation  in  amity  with  Vs, 
shall  stand  in  need  of."  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  359.  For  such  an  instance  in  167 1, 
see  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  155.  In  1672,  Lieutenant-Governor  Lynch  of 
Jamaica  allowed  a  Dutchman  driven  by  stress  of  weather  to  that  island  to 
sell  as  many  negroes  as  were  required  to  refit  his  ship.  Ibid.  p.  323.  As  a 
rule,  the  colonial  authorities  carefully  reported  the  details  of  such  cases  to 
the  English  government  so  as  to  protect  themselves  against  charges  of 
countenancing  illegal  trade.  On  the  privileges  accorded  to  English  ships 
seeking  aid  in  the  French  colonies,  see  S.  L.  Mims,  Colbert's  West  India 
PoHcy,  pp.  199,  200. 

^  One-third  of  such  forfeitures  was  apportioned  to  the  Crown,  one-third 
to  the  Governor  of  the  colony  in  case  the  ships  were  seized  where  the  law 
had  been  violated  (otherwise  this  share  also  went  to  the  Crown),  and  one- 
third  belonged  to  the  seizer  or  informer.    But  in  case  the  offendin^x  vessel 


Ii 


I. 


*' 


70 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


eflFective  the  statute  of  1660  further  prohibited  aU  aliens 
from  acting  as  merchants  or  factors  in  the  colonies.^ 

half  to  the  officers  of  the  royal  navy  to  be  apportioned  among  them  accord- 
mg  to  the  rules  or  the  division  of  prizes.     This  naturaUy  led  to  some  2- 
putes  between  the  officers  of  the  navy  and  the  governors     See  .,    C  O 
1/26,  79,  79i,  ii;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  233.  ^^" 

W?'  ^a'  f ' .'''  '^'  ^  ^*  ^^'^^Sners,  who  had  become  naturalized  or  had 
been  made  den^ens,  enjoyed  the  privileges  to  which  natural-born  subjects 
o  the  Crown  were  entitled.  C/.  C.  C.  r675-x676,  pp.  .44,  147.  As  a  nuL 
ber  of  foreigners  had  settled  in  the  colonies,  some  means  had  to  be  devised 
for  confemng  these  rights  other  than  by  naturaUzation  by  Act  of  Parhament 
or  by  the  .ssue  of  letters  of  denization  by  the  Crown.  Accordingly, Tatu- 
ral.zat.on  laws  were  passed  by  some  of  the  colonial  legislatures  a;die 
governors  also  on  their  own  authority  bestowed  the  privileges  of  an  Engl^ 

et^d  th"   Trr  "'^'^^  ^^^^  ^*^^^^^^^^^-     ^-^  naLalization  c  ^^ 
erred  the  nghts  of  an  English  subject  within  the  specific  colony  and 
enabled  an  ahen  to  act  as  a  merchant  there.    But  immediately  the  ques 
t^n  arose,  whether  such  naturalization  were  vaHd  in  the  other  domiln 

f^tir  \T\  'T'^^  ^"^^^  ^^^^  '^  ^^^  '^y  ^-  -t  beenX' 
EnS    solved.     See  E.  B.  Sargant,  British  Citizenship  (London,  xpx.). 

N  w  York,  although  provided  with  a  pass  from  Governor  Lovelace  of  that 
colony   was  condemned  in  Jamaica  on  the  ground  that  the  owner  was 
not  a  den.en.    This  decision  was,  however,  reversed  in  EnglanTc    C 
1669-1674,  pp.  434-436,  453.    In  1682,  the  English  govermnent '  took  a 

'  t::T::t"^rT  ^"'^^  '^  '"^^  ^^^^  ^  ^^-  ^^^^-^  --it: 

seized  m  St.  Kitts  because  a  native  of  France  was  a  part  owner.  As  this 
Frenchman  had  received  letters  of  naturahzation  from  Governor  Culpept 
of  V„,  Governor  Stapleton  of  the  Leeward  Islands  deferred  the  execu 

Actmg  on  the  opimon  of  Chief  Justice  North,  that  naturahzation  in  any 

ifo Is     Bi  ;.     T.        '^  ^^'  ''''  ^"'  ''''  ^5°'  ^58,  346;  p.  C.  Cal. 

dLsion  '  A  D  :r  ^T''  ''  '  "^-    '"  '''''  '  ^^^^-  --  -lied  for 
decision     A  Dutch  merchant  of  New  York  petitioned  the  govermnent 

stating  that  he  and  his  feUows  in  that  colony  had  since  1664  regard™  m-' 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


71 


These  provisions  of  the  Navigation  Act  of  1660,  though 
much  more  elaborate  in  form,  in  their  general  effect  merely 
reproduced  the  earlier  Stuart  regulations  and  that  of  the 
Act  of  1650  prohibiting  foreigners  from  trading  to  the  Eng- 
lish colonies.  At  the  last  moment,  however,  apparently 
under  the  inspiration  of  Downing,  was  added  a  provision 
with  distinctly  original  features.^  The  policy  of  confining 
the  colonial  export  trade  to  England  had  already  been 
unequivocally  adopted  by  the  first  Stuarts.  During  the 
anarchy  of  the  Civil  War  their  regulations  had  fallen  into 
desuetude  and,  except  in  isolated,  sporadic  instances,  had 
not  been  revived  by  the  Interregnum  authorities.^  This 
regulation  was  now  elaborated  in  a  form  far  more  definite 
and  scientific  than  the  earher  precedents  upon  which  it 
was  based.    The  belated  clause  in  the  Act  of  Navigation 

selves  as  "free  subjects  of  England,"  but  that  some  of  the  officers  of  the 
customs  in  England  had  demanded  aUens'  duties  on  goods  imported  by  them. 
In  pursuance  of  a  report  of  the  Customs  board,  the  Treasury  ordered  that 
these  merchants  should  enjoy  the  same  privileges  as  any  other  subjects. 
Treas.  Books,  Out-Le.tters,  Customs  12,  f.  309.    Foreigners  seeking  a  new 
home  in  the  colonies  had  to  meet  these  facts.    In  1685,  some  Huguenots,  who 
were  about  to  sail  from  England  for  New  York,  were  warned  by  the  govern- 
ment that  their  French-built  ship  and  their  goods  would  be  seized  if  they 
proceeded  to  the  EngKsh  colonies,  and  that,  being  aHens,  they  could  not    ' 
become  merchants  or  factors  there  under  pain  of  forfeiture  of  their  entire 
property.    Ibid.  10,  f.  54.    On  this  entire  subject,  see  Chalmers,  PoUtical 
Annals  (London,  1780),  pp.  316,  317  J  W.  A.  Shaw,  Denizations  and  NaturaU- 
zations  of  AHens  (Huguenot  Society  of  London  Publ.  Vol.  XVIII) ;  Car- 
penter, Naturalization  in  England  and  the  American  Colonies  (Am.  Hist. 
Rev.  IX,  pp.  288-304) ;  Start,  NaturaUzation  in  the  English  Colonies  of    ' 
America  (Am.  Hist.  Assoc.  1893,  pp.  317-339). 

^  12  Ch.  II,  c.  18,  §  xviii;  Com.  Journal  VIII,  pp.  120,  129,  142,  151. 
Beer,  Origins,  pp.  400-403. 


1     !l 


i 


» 


1} 


t!i 


/ 


■«:- 


( 


' 


72 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


provided  that,  under  penalty  of  forfeiture  of  the  offending 
vessel  and  its  cargo/  no  sugar,  tobacco,  cotton-wool,  indigo, 
ginger,  fustic  or  other  dyeing-woods  produced  in  the  Enghsh 
colonies  could  be  shipped  elsewhere  than  to  England,  Ire- 
land or  some  other  English  colony.^ 

With    the    exception    of    tobacco,   of   which    the    chief 
producers  were  Virginia  and  Maryland,  the  commodities 
enumerated  in  this  list  —  whence  the  policy  is  commonly 
known  as   that   of   enumeration  —  were   exclusively   the 
produce  of  the  West  Indies.    No  one  of  the  typical  prod- 
ucts of  the  New  England  colonies  was  enumerated  for 
the  obvious  reason  that,  with  insignificant  exceptions,  they 
could  not  be  imported  on  a  commercially  profitable  basis; 
and,  even  if  it  had  been  otherwise,  England  did  not  want 
them,  as  they  ran  parallel  to  EngHsh  products  and  hence 
their  importation  would  have  injured  English  industries. 
The  exotic  commodities  which  England  did  not  produce 
were  enumerated,  because  England  required  them  in  order 
to   become   economically   independent    of   her    competing 
European  rivals,  and  also  to  sell  to  them  whatever  surplus 

1  According  to  a  legal  opinion  given  in  1698,  if  a  ship  took  any  of  the 
enumerated  goods  to  a  foreign  port,  both  the  vessel  and  its  cargo  were  sub- 
ject to  forfeiture  in  case  the  enumeration  bond  had  been  given  in  England/ 
but  if  the  bond  had  been  given  in  the  colonies,  then  only  the  amount  stipu- 
lated therein  could  be  claimed  as  a  penalty.  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  9747, 
f.  107. 

2  When  shipped  to  England,  these  commodities  had  to  be  actually  landed 
and  had  to  pay  the  English  customs  as  well  as  a  number  of  petty  charges, 
such  as  town-dues  and  wharfage.  Only  then  could  they  be  reshipped  to 
foreign  markets.  C.  O.  324/4,2.  191-206;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  175- 
177. 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


73 


might  remain  after  the  English  consumption  had  been 
supplied.  In  both  ways  would  the  nation's  balance  of 
trade  be  fortified  and  its  economic  welfare  advanced.  The 
policy  of  enumeration  was  the  clearest  possible  expression 
of  the  current  economic  creed. 

In  order  to  make  this  regulation  effective,  ships  intending 
to  sail  to  the  colonies  from  England  or  Ireland  were  first  re- 
quired to  give  bonds,  either  of  £1000  or  of  £2ocxd  contingent 
upon  their  tonnage,  to  carry  these  enumerated  commodities 
to  England  or  Ireland.^  On  the  other  hand,  vessels  arriving 
in  the  colonies  from  any  other  place  were  obliged  to  give 
bonds  in  like  amounts  there  to  take  these  products  eithpr 
to  England  or  Ireland,  or  to  some  other  English  colony.  This 
difference  between  these  two  kinds  of  bonds  was  distinctly 
favorable  to  colonial  ships.  If  strictly  enforced,  it  would 
have  given  them  a  virtual  monopoly  of  the  intercolonial 
trade,  since  the  terms  of  their  bonds  debarred  most  English 
ships  trading  to  America  from  taking  the  emmaerated  com- 
modities from  one  colony  to  another.  ^    As  a  matter  of  fact, 


,"' 


!  I 


1 12  Ch.  II,  c.  18,  §  xix.  In  the  colonies,  certificates  that  such  bonds  had 
been  given  in  England  or  Ireland  had  to  be  produced  to  the  proper  authorities. 
For  these  certificates,  see  C.  O.  1/56,  nos.  29,  30,  30!. 

2  In  his  notes  of  1676,  after  reciting  the  terms  of  the  bonds  given  by  Eng- 
Hsh ships  trading  to  the  colonies.  Sir  Joseph  WiUiamson  wrote:  'It  shaU 
seem  an  EngHsh  ship  going  from  hence  cannot  trade  from  one  plantation 
to  another ;  or  on  lading  in  any  plantation  she  must  either  produce  a  certifi- 
cate of  such  a  bond  having  been  enacted  into  here  in  England,  or  must  then 
enter  into  such  a  bond  to  the  Governor  to  carry  the  goods  to  England  or 
some  other  of  the  plantations  (so  by  this  clause  it  should  seem  such  an 
English  ship  may  trade  directly  from  one  Plantation  to  another.  Qu. 
how  this  consists  with  the  first  clause  ?).'    C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  381. 


/ 


\i 


74 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


for  approximately  the  first  twenty-five  years  after  1660 
no  special  stress  was  placed  upon  this  distinction/  which 
seems  to  have  been  the  result  of  careless  legislation  rather 
than  of  deliberate  intent,  and  English  vessels  did  extensively 
engage  in  the  intercolonial  trade.^  Towards  the  end  of  the 
Restoration  period,  when  in  every  respect  a  more  rigid  and 
meticulous  enforcement  of  the  law  in  the  colonies  was  de- 
manded by  the  home  government,  this  distinction  in  the 
two  kmds  of  bonds  was,  however,  strictly  insisted  upon.' 

Tala'L'ld?'  "^"w  °'  •''  '""''"^  '^°''  '°  '^^  ^°— -  of  Barbados. 
Jamaica,  and  Virginia  to  seize  six  specific  ships  that  had  left  England  without 

g.v  ng  bonds,  in  case  they  should  arrive  within  their  respective 'urisd'tas 

But  in  the  same  year  the  King  wrote  to  the  West  Indian  GovernoTs  to  e„ 

force  the  laws  of  trade;  and,  in  case  any  ships  should  arrive  Z  Enlnd 

without  having  given  bond  there,  they  were  instructed  not  to  Zlt  tm 

An  examination  of  some  of  the  naval  office  lists  of  the  period  defective 
and  incomplete  though  they  are,  shows  conclusively  that  Engl'h  vet^^^^^^^^^ 
not  abide  by  the  strict  letter  of  the  law.  In  a  list  of  x 6 78-1 67rof5rsW  ar 

from  England,  gave  bonds  in  the  colony.    Yet  of  these  51  vessels  onlv  .2 

Zii^'c   r^f '^'^^^^^  ^'^"^'  ^"  '-'  ^^  board  «l;tm! 
modities.     CO.  33/13,  no.  i  (Barbados  Naval  Office  Lists    1678-170.) 

An  account  of  the  .5  Ch.  II,  c.  7  duties  paid  in  Barbados  at  aW  1  Lme 

^e  shows  that  .7  ships  were  bound  for  the  other  colonies,  of  wh  ch     be 

bnged  to  England  and  .0  to  the  colonies,    nid.  no.  .    In   67;^^68o    ft 

the  plantations.    Of  these  50,  only  4  belonged  to  the  colonies,  yet  a  consider- 

la :  r  c  r^"'  '^^  r  ^^^^^^''  ^^-  ^-^'  viUrc 

h7:       ^  f  ^'^' ''°'  '•    ^'"  ^^^  '^'  subsequent  accounts  in  this  and 

were  at  this  tmie  able  to  engage  in  the  intercolonial  trade, 
trad,   n  v^'  Captain  Allen,  R.  N.,  who  was  employed  in  suppressing  illegal 
trade  in  Virgmia  and  Maryland,  asked  for  further  instrucrions  on  seS 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


75 


The  Navigation  Act  of  1660  introduced  no  fundamentally 
new  principle  in  the  regulation  of  colonial  trade.  For  the 
exclusion  of  foreigners  from  commerce  with  the  EngHsh 
plantations  and  for  the  restriction  of  their  export  trade  to 
the  metropolis,  ample  precedents  could  be  found  in  former 

questions  about  which  he  was  in  doubt.  One  concerned  his  duty  in  regard 
to  a  number  of  English-built  ships  that  had  cleared  in  England  for  the 
Madeiras  or  Cape  Verde  Islands,  but  had  come  to  the  colonies  without 
having  given  bond  in  England.  The  report  of  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Customs,  which  was  approved  by  the  Lord  Treasurer  and  the  Privy  Council, 
instructed  him  that  "no  Ship  coming  from  any  part  of  the  World,  except 
from  one  Plantation  to  another,  or  from  his  Majestys  Islands  or  Territorys 
in  Asia,  Africa  or  America,  is  to  be  permitted  to  enter  into  any  Bond  what- 
ever in  the  Plantations  but  if  they  take  in  any  Goods  there,  both  the  said 
ship  and  Goods  are  become  forfeitable,  and  ought  to  be  seized  and  prose- 
cuted accordingly."  P.  C.  Cal.  II,  pp.  85-88.  This  distinction  was  also 
clearly  emphasized  in  the  trade  instructions  issued  in  1686  to  Sir  Edmund 
Andros.  In  case  any  ship  should  arrive  in  New  England  with  enumerated 
commodities,  he  was  to  see  if  bond  bad  been  duly  given,  and  if  not,  he  was 
to  seize  the  vessel  and  cargo.  If  bond  had  been  given,  he  was  to  examine  it 
to  see  if  its  condition  was  to  come  to  England  alone,  or  to  England  or  some 
other  English  colony.  In  the  former  case  he  was  to  forbid  the  vessel  to 
unload.  C.  O.  5/904,  ff.  330-332.  Similarly,  the  instructions  issued  m  1686 
by  the  Surveyor  General  of  the  Customs  in  the  colonies,  Patrick  Mein,  to 
the  Virginia  collectors  stated  that  no  enumerated  goods  were  to  be  laden  on 
any  vessel  coming  from  England  until  a  certificate  should  have  been  pro- 
duced of  a  bond  given  in  England  to  carry  these  goods  there ;  but,  in  case  the 
ship  should  come  from  any  other  place,  bond  was  to  be  given  to  carry  these 
products  to  England  or  to  some  other  EngUsh  colony.  C.  O.  1/59,  34,  §  9. 
Cf.  also  C.  O.  5/903,  f.  106.  In  reply  to  one  of  the  charges  made  by  Captain 
Crofts,  R.  N.,  against  the  Virginia  administration,  the  Governor,  Lord  Howard 
of  Effingham,  at  this  tune  stated  that  no  one  of  the  Council,  except  Bacon, 
was  engaged  in  trade,  but  that  some  were  part  owners  of  London  ships, 
ivhich  fact  did  not  concern  the  one-penny  duty.  He  meant  by  this  that  English 
ships  were  prevented  by  the  terms  of  their  bonds  from  taking  tobacco  to 
another  colony.    C.  O.  1/62,  20  ii. 


f 


76 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


'    I 


V 

It 

1   ' 


English  practice.    The  effect  of  the  Act  was  to  give  Eng- 
lish, Irish,  and  colonial  shipping  a  monopoly  of  the  carrying 
trade  within  the  Empire,  and  to  make  England  the  staple 
for  tobacco  and  the  West  Indian  products.     Under  this 
law,  however,  English  merchants,  and  even  those  of  alien 
nationahty,   could   send   foreign   manufactures  and  other 
commodities  from  the  various  states  in  Europe  in  EngHsh 
shipping  to  the  colonies.     In  this  way,  the  colonial  trade 
would  to  some  extent  be  taken  out  of  the  hands  of  English 
merchants  and  the  value  of  the  colonies  as  markets  for  Eng- 
land lessened.    In  order  to  obviate  this.  Parliament  in  1663 
passed  an  additional  law,  whose  preamble  ^  outlines  con- 
cisely, but  clearly,  its  underlying  motives.    Such  direct  trade 
from  the  continent  of  Europe  was  in  the  future  forbidden  in 
order  to  n^aintain  "a  greater  correspondence  and  kindness'' 
between  the  colonies  and  England  and  for  "keeping  them  in 
a  firmer  dependance  upon  it,  and  rendring  them  yet  more 
beneficial  and  advantagious  unto  it  in  the  further  imploy- 
ment  and  increase  of  EngHsh  shipping  and  seamen,  vent  of 
English  woolen  and  other  manufactures  and  commodities, 
rendring  the  navigation  to  and  from  the  same  more  safe  and 
cheap,  and  making  this  kingdom  a  staple,  not  only  of  the 
commodities  of  those  plantations,  but  also  of  the  commodi- 
ties of  other  countries  and  places,  for  the  supplying  of  them." 
An  analysis  of  this  condensed  statement  wiU  show  that  the 
motives,  though  mainly  economic,  were  also  partly  pohtical 
and  military.    The  obvious  economic  advantages  were  an 
increase  in  the  business  of  the  English  merchants,  with  prob- 

1 15  Ch  II,  c.  7,  §  V. 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


77 


ably  an  enlarged  consumption  of  English  manufactures 
by  the  colonies ;  more  employment  for  English  shipping  on 
account  of  the  indirect  voyages  resulting  from  the  law;  and 
also  a  larger  customs  revenue,  since  European  products 
shipped  to  the  colonies  through  England  would  in  the  pro- 
cess have  to  pay  some  duties.^  As  a  result  of  the  ensuing 
closer  commercial  relations,  the  political  ties  binding  the 
colonies  to  the  mother  country  would  inevitably  become 
closer.  Finally,  the  trade  to  the  colonies,  instead  of  being 
carried  on  from  scattered  points  on  the  continent,  would 
become  centralized  in  a  few  clearly  marked  trade-routes  radi- 
ating from  England.  This  would  be  an  immense  military 
advantage  and  would  greatly  facilitate  England's  onerous 
task  of  defending  this  trade  from  pirate  or  enemy. 

Accordingly,  the  "Staple  Act"  of  1663  prohibited,  under 
the  same  severe  penalties  as  were  imposed  by  the  Naviga- 
tion Act  of  1660,  the  importation  into  the  colonies  of  any 
European  commodities  that  had  not  been  laden  and  shipped 
in  England.^    Goods  whose  importation  into  England  for 

1  This  fiscal  advantage  was  not  very  marked,  as  these  duties  were  insig- 
nificant. It  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Act  of  1663,  but  a  subsequent  statute 
summarizes  the  reasons  for  the  poKcy  of  enumeration  and  that  of  the  staple, 
stating  that  otherwise  the  trade  of  the  colonies  would  "in  a  great  measure 
be  diverted  from  hence,  and  carried  elsewhere,  his  Majestys  customs  and 
other  revenues  much  lessened,  and  this  kingdom  not  continue  a  staple  of  the 
said  commodities  of  the  said  plantations,  nor  that  vent  for  the  future  of  the 
victual  and  other  native  conmiodities  of  this  kingdom."  22  &  23  Ch.  II, 
c.  26,  §§  X,  xi. 

*  As  in  the  case  of  the  entmaerated  commodities,  before  they  could  be 
reexported  from  England,  these  foreign  goods  had  to  be  actually  landed  in 
England.  This  provision  was,  however,  not  always  strictly  enforced  and, 
in  consequence,  in  1676  the  English  customs  officials  were  instructed  to  see 


M' 


i 


", 


' 


78 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


M  ' 


consumption  there  was  strictly  forbidden  could,  however, 
be  shipped  to  the  colonies;  for  otherwise,  the  authorities 
said,  they  would  be  "debarred  of  aU  such  comodities."  ^ 
From  the  rigor  of  the  law  were  also  excepted  certain  articles, 
whose  inclusion  in  the  prohibition  would  have  been  obvi- 
ously detrimental  to  the  welfare  of  the  colonies.    Thus 
salt  for  the  Newfoundland  and  New  England  fisheries  was 
exempted,  in  order  not  to  hamper  in  any  way  these  indus- 
tries in   their  competition  with  England's  foreign  rivals 
for  the  markets  of  southern  Europe.^    Sinularly,  horses  and 
provisions '  were  aUowed  to  be  exported  directly  from  Scot- 
land and  Ireland  to  the  colonies,  mainly  in  order  not  to 
raise  the  cost  of  the  production  of  sugar  and  other  commodi- 
ties  in  the  West  Indies.    FinaUy,  wine  of   the  Madeiras 
and  Azores,  possessions  of  England's  aUy,  Portugal,  could 
be  shipped  directly  from  these  places.    This  last  clause  was 
somewhat  obscurely  worded,  so  that  it  was  not  clear  whether 
or  no  Parliament  had  intended  to  include  as  weU  the  wines 

that  these  goods  were  "entirely  unladen  and  actuaUy  put  on  shore."    In 
1679,  renewed  orders  to  this  effect  were  issued.     Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676- 
1679,  p.  206 ;  Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  5,  f.  30.    The  object  of 
course,  was  to  ensure  full  payment  of  the  English  customs  duties. 
Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1660-1667,  pp.  620,  621. 

dirlrH    f  ^'  ^"^^  ^'''^'''  '^"''^''''  '''^''''''^  P^™i^^^°^  to  ship  salt 
direc  ly  from  Europe  to  Virginia  for  use  in  a  fishery  that  they  proposed  to 

estabhsh  there.    The  matter  was  referred  to  the  Treasury  and  by 'them  ^o 
the  Customs,  who  recommended  granting  the  request,  but  for  one  voyage 

tt'ottr  n''^"""';  f  '"'"  "'^^^^'^  ''  P^^--^  -y  -ol-tion  oi 

Out  Letrr  ""''"'''•    ^•^•C^-II'PP-0^,-3.    C/.  Treas  Books 
Out-Letters,  Customs  11,  ff.  100,  loi. 

^  And  also  servants. 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


79 


of  the  Canaries,  which  belonged  to  Spain.  Regarding  this 
moot  point  many  and  bitter  were  the  disputes,  attaining  a 
political  significance  totally  incommensurate  with  its  in- 
trinsic economic  importance,  and  still  remaining  not  defi- 
nitely decided  when  the  American  Revolution  rendered 
imnecessary  all  further  argument.^ 

1  The  Act  of  1663  does  not  specifically  name  the  Canaries,  but  enmnerates 
the  Madeiras  and  Western  Islands  of  Azores.    The  Navigation  Act  of  1660, 
however,  mentions  the  "Western  Islands,  commonly  called  Azores,  or  Ma- 
dera or  Canary  islands."    Thus  there  was  some  reason  for  holding  that  Par- 
liament had  intended  to  include  the  Canaries.    But,  apart  from  the  intent 
of  the  legislature,  the  crux  of  the  question  was  whether  these  islands  formed 
part  of  Africa  or  of  Europe.    If  they  were  held  to  belong  geographically  to 
Africa,  which  was  the  more  natural  view,  the  direct  importation  of  wine 
from  them  into  the  colonies  would  still  have  been  perfectly  legal,  even  if  men- 
tion of  the  Canaries  had  been  intentionally  omitted  from  the  Act  of  1663. 
In  1706,  Sir  Edward  Northey,  then  Attorney-General,  held  that  the  Canaries 
formed  part  of  Africa.    Brit.  Mus.,  Hargrave  MSS.  141,  ff.  35  »>,  36.    During 
the  Restoration  period,  however,  the  Enghsh  government  consistently  main- 
tained that  the  importation  of  wine  from  the  Canaries  into  the  colonies  was 
illegal.    The  royal  proclamation  of  Nov.  24, 1675,  enjoining  the  enforcement 
of  the  trade  laws,  especially  the  Staple  Act  of  1663,  mentioned  among  the 
commodities  exempted  wines  only  from  the  Madeiras  and  from  the  Western 
Islands  or  Azores.    British  Royal  Proclamation,  1603-1783  (Am.  Antiqu. 
Soc,  1911),  pp.  126-128.    A  not  inconsiderable  part  of  Randolph's  com- 
plaints against  Massachusetts  concerned  this  trade.     See  post,  Chapter  XI. 
In  1686,  came  before  the  EngUsh  government  the  case  of  a  vessel  condemned 
by  the  New  England  Admiralty  Court  for  importing  Canary  wines.    The 
Commissioners  of  the  Customs  reported  that  in  construction  and  practice 
these  islands  were  considered  to  be  in  Europe,  though  at  times  placed  in  the 
maps  of  Africa.    They  further  added  that,  although  the  Madeiras  were 
also  geographically  in  Africa,  yet  the  Act  of  1663  supposed  them  to  be  in 
Europe,  as  otherwise  it  would  not  have  specificaUy  excepted  their  wines. 
Moreover,  they  said,  Spain  did  not  consider  the  Canaries  as  a  colony,  but  as  a 
part  of  itself,  and  hence  foreigners  were  aUowed  to  trade  there.    As,  however, 
the  master  of  the  vessel  in  question  was  ignorant  of  his  transgression,  and  for 


I'm 


M 


8o 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


In  the  course  of  a  few  years  it  was  found  that,  in  the  actual 
working  of  the  enumeration  clauses  of  the  Act  of  Navigation, 
there  developed  certain  definite  inconveniences,  for  which  a 
remedy  was  deemed  desirable.    When  imported  into  England, 
these  commodities  paid  duties,  but,  when  shipped  to  another 
colony,  either  no  or  very  slight  customs  were  levied  by  the 
local  authorities  and  none  of  course  by  England,  and  thus 
the  colonial  consumer  fared  much  better  than  his  fellow 
in  the  mother  country.     Moreover,  when  reexported  from 
England,  only  a  part  of  the  duties  collected  there  was  re- 
paid, and  consequently  such  goods  were  under  some  disad- 
vantage in  competing  in  foreign  markets  with  those  shipped 
there  directly  from  the  colonies  in  violation  of  the  law.^ 
The  latter  was  a  very  important  consideration,  and  was 
brought  to  the  attention  of  Parhament  by  some  merchants 
engaged  in  the  Virginia  trade,  who  complained  "  that  New 
England  men  did  carry  much  tobaccoe  &  other  Commoditys 
of  the  Growth  of  the  plantations  to  New  England,  &  from 
thence  did  carry  them  to  fforraigne  nations,  whereby  they 
could   underseU   them    &   Lessen   his    ma''^^   Customes."^ 

other  reasons  as  weU,  the  Commissioners  advised  its  release.  The  Attorney- 
General,  Sir  Robert  Sawyer,  did  not  agree  with  this  report,  stating  that  the 
Canaries  were  a  part  of  Africa,  and  that  the  law  must  be  construed  in  accord- 
ance with  the  geographical  facts.  Accordingly,  Governor  Andros  was  in- 
structed to  discharge  the  seizure  and  the  bond  given  to  abide  by  the  decision 
of  the  case  in  England.  Blathwayt,  Journal  I,  flf.  201-203,  210.  See  also 
Goodrick,  Randolph  VI,  p.  195. 

1  25  Ch.  II,  c.  7,  §  ii,  expUcitly  gives  these  as  the  two  reasons  for  the  duties 
imposed  thereby. 

2  This  statement  and  the  foUowing  facts  regarding  the  passage  of  the  law 
are  derived  from  a  letter  of  Edward  Thornburgh,  on  behalf  of  the  Com- 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION  81 

Upon  learning  of   this    complaint,   the   Committee   of 
Gentlemen   Planters,   who   looked    after   the   interests   of 
Barbados  in  England,  appeared  before  the  parliamentary 
committee  having  this  matter  under  consideration.     They 
assured  this  body  that  all  the  sugar  exported  from  the 
West  Indies  to  New  England  (except  what  was  consumed 
there)  was  ultimately  brought  to  England,  and  that  it  was 
impossible  for  the  New  England  traders  to  ship  it  to  Spain 
and  Portugal,  where  the  English  product  was  prohibited,  or 
to  France,  because  of  the  high  impost  there.     These  Bar- 
badians likewise  pointed  out  how  necessary  to  them  was 
their  trade  with  New  England,  and  further  "Possessed 
seueraU  ParHam*  men  how  impracticable  it  was  for  them  to 
Lay  a  tax  on  those  that  had  noe  members  in  theire  house."  ^ 
Parhament,  however,  was  not  converted  by  these  arguments, 
and  early  in  16732   passed  a  law  laying  export  duties  on 
the  enumerated  products  when  shipped  to  another  colony.^ 
The  Act  provided  that,  if  any  vessel  should  lade  any  of 

mittee  of  Gentlemen  Planters,  to  the  Barbados  Assembly,  dated  AprU  i, 
1673.    C.  0.  31/2,  ff.  123,  124;    C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  475.    In  "Some 
Observations  about  the  Plantations,"  it  was  also  said  that  these  1673  duties 
were  "whoUy  made  in  reference  to  New-England."    Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS 
28,079,  f.  85. 

^They  pointed  out  "the  great  necessity  the  Sugar  Plantations  had  of  a 
trade  with  them  for  Boards  timber  pipstaues  horses  &  fish,  &  that  they  could 
not  mainetaine  theire  buildings,  nor  send  home  theire  Sugars,  nor  make 
aboue  ha Ife  that  quantity  without  a  Supply  of  those  things  from  New 
■bngland." 

'  These  duties  are  occasionaDy  referred  to  as  those  of  1672.    The  bill 

SndT'''''  ^^'""^  ^"^  ^^  ^^^  ^"""^  ""^  ^'^  °^  ^^'"^  ^9'  ^^73-    Com. 
'  25  Ch.  II,  c.  7,  §  ii. 


i>l 


^' 


n 


82 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


these  commodities,  and  also  cocoa-nuts/  without  first  giving 
bond  to  take  them  to  England  and  nowhere  else,  then  there 
should  be  paid  certain  duties,  which  were  roughly  based  on 
those  imposed  by  the  EngHsh  tariff  of  1660,  generally  known 
as  the  Old  Subsidy.^  Of  these  duties  by  far  the  most  im- 
portant were  those  on  tobacco  and  sugar,^  which  were  the 

1  Although  sometimes  so  stated,  cocoa-nuts  were  not  placed  on  the  enu- 
merated list  by  the  statute.  A  duty  of  id.  a  lb.  was  merely  imposed  if 
they  were  exported  elsewhere  than  to  England.  This  error  even  crops  up 
in  unexpected  quarters.  In  the  draft  instructions  for  the  customs  officials 
in  America,  prepared  by  the  Customs  Board  and  sent  by  them  in  1697  to 
the  House  of  Lords,  appears  on  the  margin  of  §  3  a  list  of  the  enumerated 
commodities  in  which  were  included  cocoa-nuts.  House  of  Lords  MSS. 
(1695-1697),  II,  p.  473.    Elsewhere  this  list  is  correctly  given.    Ibid.  p.  17. 


Sugar :  white  per  cwi 

brown  and  muscovado  per  cwt. 

Tobacco  per  lb 

Cotton-wool  per  lb 

Indigo  per  lb 

Ginger  per  cwt 

Logwood  per  cwt  ^ 

Fustic  and  other  dyeing- woods  per  cwt. 
Cocoa-nuts  per  lb 


Plantation  Duties 
OF  1673 


English  Duties 
OF  1660 


5s. 

IS.  6d. 
2d.^ 
free 


25.  (d.  per  cwt. 


^  The  subsidy  of  1660  itself  imposed  a  duty  of  only  id.,  but  in  the  Book  of 
Rates  of  1660  provision  was  made  for  an  additional  duty  of  id. 

^  It  was  presumably  an  error  for  £5  a  ton.  13  &  14  Ch.  II,  c.  11,  §§  xxvi, 
xxvii,  allowed  the  importation  of  logwood  into  England,  and  imposed  a  duty 
of  £5  a  ton.  It  may  be  mentioned  that  Charles  II  granted  the  revenue  from 
these  logwood  duties  in  England  to  Nell  Gwyn  for  twenty-one  years  from 
Sept.  29,  1683  on.  Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  8,  ff.  239,  273 ;  10, 
f.  36. 

^  Cf.  C.  0.  29/3,  7. 


J 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION  2>^ 

only  commodities  entering  extensively  into  intercolonial 
commerce.  The  sugar  duties  were  the  same  as  those  of  the 
English  tariff  of  1660 ;  on  raw  sugar,  the  most  important 
variety,  they  amounted  to  one  shilling  and  sixpence  the 
hundredweight,  a  not  inconsiderable  tax.  On  tobacco 
the  duty  imposed  was  one-penny  a  pound,  which  was  only 
one-half  of  the  English  customs  of  1660,  possibly  because 
the  legislators  overlooked  the  additional  duty  of  one-penny 
imposed  at  the  same  time  in  the  Book  of  Rates  annexed  to 
the  statute. 

Though  distinctly  in  the  form  of  a  revenue  bill,  the  main- 
purpose  of  this  law  was  to  render  unprofitable  violations 
of  the  enumeration  clauses  of  the  Act  of  1660.^    Some  rev- 
enue of  but  insignificant  size,  it  is  true,  was  naturally  de- 
rived from  it,  but  this  was  an  incidental  feature.^    Even 

1  Forty  years  after  its  passage,  the  question  arose  whether  these  duties 
were  payable  on  some  sugar  shipped  from  St.  Christopher  to  Nevis  for 
trans-shipment  to  England.  In  support  of  the  affirmative,  it  was  argued  that 
the  Leeward  Islands  were  distinct  colonies,  each  under  a  lieutenant-governor 
with  separate  assembUes,  although  in  extraordmary  cases  the  governor- 
general  could  call  a  general  assembly,  capable  of  making  laws  binding  all  the 
islands.  April  28,  1715,  the  Attorney-General,  Sir  Edward  Northey,  gave 
his  opinion  that  the  intent  of  the  law  was  to  impose  the  duties  when  the  goods 
were  shipped  from  colony  to  colony  for  sale,  but  not  if  merely  for  further 
trans-shipment,  and  that  consequently  these  duties  were  not  payable  in 
the  case  before  him.  Brit.  Mus.,  Hargrave  MSS.  275,  f.  39»> ;  Add.  MSS. 
8,832,  ff.  245-249.  However  equitable  this  decision,  it  grossly  misrepre- 
sented the  purposes  of  the  law. 

'  The  earliest  original  colonial  account  that  I  have  seen  is  one  from  Barba- 
dos, giving  the  details  of  the  collection  of  £63  from  27  vessels  during  the  lat- 
ter half  of  1679.  The  destination  of  these  vessels  was,  to  Virginia  10,  to  New 
England  9,  to  Carolina  4,  to  New  York  2,  to  the  Bermudas  i,  and  to  New- 
foundland I.    C.  O.  33/13,  2.    There  is  extant,  however,  an  account  pre- 


frl^ 


84 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


when  these  duties  were  paid,  the  goods  were  still  subject 
to  the  enumeration  regulation  and  could  not  be  reshipped 
from  the  intermediate  colony  directly  to  foreign  markets. 
The  wording  of  the  law  was  somewhat  ambiguous  on  this 
point,  but  the  EngHsh  government  ruled  decisively  in  favor  of 
this  interpretation,^  and  aU  question  was  definitely  removed 
by  a  clause  in  the  great  administrative  statute  of  1696.2 

These  three  Acts  of  Parliament  —  the  Navigation  Act  of 
1660,  the  Staple  Act  of  1663,  and  that  of  1673  imposing  the 
Plantation  Duties  —  constitute  the  economic  framework  of 
the  old  colonial  system.     They  have  hitherto  been  consid- 

pared  by  the  ComptroUer-General  of  the  Customs  in  England  in  1679,  giving 
in  detail  the  quantities  of  these  commodities,  with  the  duties  paid  thereon 
in  each  West  Indian  island  during  the  year  beginning  Sept.  29,  1677.  In 
submitting  this  account,  the  Comptroller  stated  that  no  accounts  had  hith- 
erto come  from  New  England,  and  that  those  from  Virginia,  Antigua,  and 
some  of  the  other  colonies  were  stiU  in  the  hands  of  the  Auditor.  '  The 
major  portion  of  these  commodities  consisted  of  962,166  lbs.  of  sugar  shipped 
mainly  to  New  England  and  Virginia,  on  which  about  £640  must  have  been 
collected.  57,409  lbs.  of  cotton  were  shipped,  virtuaUy  all  to  New  Eng- 
land, on  which  the  duty  amounted  to  about  £120.  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS. 
^^SS'',  f.  237;  C.  O.  1/43,  180. 

1  In  1676,  in  consequence  of  a  complaint  that  some  New  England  mer- 
chants were  violating  the  enumeration  clauses,  this  point  was  submitted  to 
the  Attorney-General  by  the  Lords  of  Trade.  In  reply,  Sir  WiUiam  Jones 
stated  that  these  goods  were  still  subject  to  the  enumeration  clauses  of  the 
Act  of  1660.  C.  O.  5/903,  f.  106;  C.  O.  324/4,  ff.  29,  30;  C.  C.  1675- 
1676,  pp.  337,  350 ;  Chalmers,  PoHtical  Annals  (London,  1780),  pp.  319,  323, 
324.  The  officials  in  America  were  instructed  so  to  interpret  and  enforce 
the  law.  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  in,  p.  384;  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  3d  series, 
VII,  pp.  132,  133. 

2  7  &  8  W.  Ill,  c.  22,  §  viii ;  House  of  Lords  MSS.  (1695-1697)  II,  p.  478. 
Hence,  as  often  as  these  goods  were  shipped  from  colony  to  colony,  so  often 
were  these  duties  payable. 


i\. 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


^5 


ered  solely  with  reference  to  England  and  the  colonies ;  it 
remains  now  to  see  what  provision  was  made  for  regulating 
the  trade  between  the  Enghsh  colonies  and  Scotland  and 
Ireland.  On  the  Restoration,  the  union  of  the  three  king- 
doms in  the  British  Isles  that  had  been  effected  by  Crom- 
well, and  which  in  the  eyes  of  some  constitutes  one  of  his 
two  chief  titles  to  everlasting  fame,^  was  again  dissolved. 
Scotland  again  became  a  separate  kingdom,  united  to  Eng- 
land only  by  virtue  of  a  common  sovereign,  and  Ireland 
once  more  reverted  to  its  status  of  a  subordinate  principality. 
As  the  American  colonies  were  dominions  of  the  EngHsh 
Crown,  it  is  not  surprising  that  free  intercourse  between 
them  and  Scotland  was  not  allowed.^  The  Navigation  Act 
of  1660  treated  Scottish  ships  as  imfree,^  and  excluded  them 

iC/.John  Morley,  Cromwell,  p.  466;  Seeley,  British  Policy  II,  p.  103  ; 
Goldwin  Smith,  The  United  Kingdom,  II,  p.  21. 

2  It  should  also  be  pointed  out  that  the  enumerated  articles  could  not  be 
imported  into  the  Channel  Islands  and  that  European  goods  could  not  be 
shipped  directly  from  them  to  the  colonies.  The  States  of  Jersey  desired 
some  modification  of  the  law,  but  this  was  refused  as  no  adequate  means 
could  be  devised  to  prevent  the  enumerated  goods  from  being  shipped  from 
that  island  to  foreign  ports.  The  law  was,  however,  occasionally  evaded, 
and  some  seizures  were  made  in  consequence  thereof.  P.  C.  Register  Charies 
H,  XI,  ff.  159,  160,  178;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  568-570,  574,  587,  588,  657-659, 
666,  748,  749;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  358,  359;  C.  0.^388/5,  420;  Cal. 
Treas.  Books,  1669-1672,  pp.  ion,  1027,  1030,  1034,  1170.  The  Isle  of 
Man  was  likewise  outside  of  the  EngHsh  fiscal  barriers  and  the  same  regu- 
lations appHed  to  it. 

'  It  was,  however,  provided  by  12  Ch.  II,  c.  18,  §  xvi,  that  aliens'  duties 
should  not  be  levied  on  com  and  salt  of  Scottish  production,  or  on  fish  caught 
and  cured  by  Scotsmen  and  imported  by  them  directly  in  Scottish-built  ships, 
whereof  the  master  and  three-quarters  of  the  mariners  were  subjects  of 
Charles  II.    Cf.  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1660-1667,  P-  325. 


'if 

ill 


H' 


i 


I 


86 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


i  1 1 


i  • 


IP ' 


from  the  colonial  trade.  Under  it  the  enumerated  articles 
could  not  be  shipped  directly  from  the  colonies  to  Scotland; 
and,  furthermore,  the  Staple  Act  of  1663  prohibited  the  di- 
rect shipment  from  Scotland  to  the  colonies  of  anything  but 
servants,  horses,  and  provisions. 

In  consequence  of  some  remonstrances  from   Scotland,^ 
the  Privy  CouncH  on  August  30, 1661,  temporarily  suspended 
the  Navigation  Act  in  so  far  as  it  applied  to  that  kingdom, 
and  ordered  the  officers  of  the  customs  to  investigate  this 
question.2    On  October  30,  i66i,3  they  reported  that  the 
suspension  of  the  Navigation  Act  in  favor  of  Scotland  would 
greatly  injure  the  EngHsh  customs  by  freeing  many  goods 
from  the  payment  of  the  ahens'  duties.     Moreover,  they  said, 
it  would  give  Scotland  liberty  to  trade  to  the  colonies,  "which 
are  absolutely  English  which  wiU  bring  infinite  losse  to  his 
Majestic  and  as  much  prejudice  to  the  English  Subject.'' 
For  the  Scottish  merchants,  they  pointed  out,  could  not  be 
effectively  bound  to  bring  the  colonial  products  to  England 
and  Ireland,  but  would  either  ship  them  directly  to  foreign 
countries   or  make   Scotland    "the   Magazine''   for   their 
supply  "and  leaue  this  Nation  to  its  home  Consumption." 
They  concluded  with  the  significantly  typical  statement 
that  "the  Plantacohs  are  his  Ma*i=  Indies  w%ut  charge 
to  him  raised  &  Supported  by  the  English  Subjects  who 
imploy  aboue  200  Saile  of  good  Ships  every  yeare,  breed 

1  Cal.  Dom.  1661-1662,  p.  74. 

2  P.  C.  Call,  p.  318. 

»  S.  P.  Dom.  Charles  II,  XLIV,  no.  12.  That  part  of  the  report  referring 
to  the  colonial  trade  is  in  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  319,  320.  An  outline  is  in  C.  C. 
1661-1668,  no.  178,  and  in  Cal.  Dom.  1661-1662,  p.  135. 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


^ 


abundance  of  Marin^  and  begin  to  grow  into  Commodities 
of  great  Value  and  esteeme,  and  though  Some  of  them  Con- 
tinue in  Tobacco  yet  upon  the  Returne  hither  it  Smells 
well,  and  paies  more  Custome  to  his  Ma^'^  than  the  East 
Indies  four  times  ouer." 

This  adverse  report  was  referred  by  the  Privy  Coimcil  to 
a  special  committee,^  and  as  they  fully  supported  its  con- 
clusions,^ on  November  22,  i66i,an  order  was  issued  abrogat- 
ing the  temporary  suspension  of  the  preceding  August  and 
again  subjecting  Scotland  and  her  shipping  to  the  pains 
and  penalties  of  the  Navigation  Act.^  Scotland's  retort  to 
England's  exclusive  policy  had  been  the  passage  in  1661 
of  her  own  Navigation  Act,  directly  modelled  on  that  of  Eng- 
land."* This  law  contained  a  clause  exempting  English  and 
Irish  vessels,  provided  in  return  Scottish  ships  should  receive 
similarly  favorable  treatment  from  England.    On  England 

1  Cal.  Dom.  1661-1662,  pp.  135,  136. 

2  On  Nov.  18,  166 1,  Treasurer  Southampton  and  Lord  Ashley  reported 
to  the  King:  "If  the  liberty  allowed  by  the  Order  of  Councell  were  fit  to 
be  granted  to  the  Scotch  nation  it  could  only  be  done  by  Act  of  Parhament 
.  .  .  and  those  noble  lords  of  the  Scotch  nation  which  first  petitioned  for 
the  Hberty  did  onely  pray  that  their  suite  might  by  your  Majesty  be  recom- 
ended  to  the  Parhament.  Concerning  the  hberty  itselfe  petitioned  for,  we 
find  it  contrary  to  the  maine  end  of  the  Act  of  Parliament  which  aimed  at 
the  increase  of  EngUsh  shipping  and  employment  of  English  mariners." 
Moreover,  they  said,  such  a  hberty  would  decrease  the  customs  revenue, 
for  even  in  the  proposition  made  by  the  Earls  of  Lauderdale  and  Crawford, 
that  five  or  six  Scottish  ships  might  have  freedom  to  trade  to  the  colonies 
and  return  thence  to  Scotland,  "your  Majesties  Customes  might  be  con- 
cerned thereby  near  20,000  /.  by  the  yeare."  Cal.  Treas.  Books;  1660- 
1667,  pp.  305,  306. 

'  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  318-320;  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1660-1667,  p.  325. 
*  Acts  of  Parhament  of  Scotland  (1820),  VII,  p.  257. 


II 


ll 


i 

4 


4 


I 

i 


S8 


m 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


refusing  to  concede  this  point,  the  Scottish  law  was  enforced/ 
but  it  wa3  naturaUy  ineffective  in  securing  more  Hberd 
treatment,  since  Scotland's  economic  resources  were  not  only 
in  themselves  meagre,  but  also  still  largely  undeveloped, 
and  hence  its  trade  offered  but  few  attractions  to  the  Eng- 
lish merchants  in  comparison  with  that  to  the  American 
plantations. 

While  Scottish  ships  were  thus  excluded  from  the  colonial 
trade,  in  a  few  exceptional  and  sporadic   instances    the 
Crown  used  its  much-questioned    authority    to    dispense 
with  the  law  in  their  favor.    In  1663  and  in  1664,  one  John 
Browne,  who  held  a  patent  for  erecting  a  sugar  refinery  in 
Scotland,  was  granted  licenses  to  trade  to  the  colonies  with 
four  Scottish  ships,  provided   they  returned  directly  to 
Scotland  or  England.^    In  1669,  with  a  view  to  stimulating 
the  development  of  New  York,  permission  was  given  to 
two  Scottish  ships,  with  such  persons  as  should  desire  to 
settle  there,  to  trade  between  that  colony  and  Scotland,  pro- 
vided no  colonial  products  whatsoever  were  carried  to  the 
dominions  of  any  foreign  prince.^    The  Farmers  of  the  Cus- 
toms forthwith  complained  that  this  order  was  ambiguous 
and  would  allow  these  vessels  to  take  the  enumerated  goods 
to  any  of  the  King's  dominions ;   that  these  ships  might  in- 
jure the  English  customs  revenue  to  the  extent  of  £7000 
yearly  and  that  the  permission  was  in  direct  opposition  to 

^  Theodora  Keith,   Commercial  Relations  of  England  and  Scotland, 
1603-1707,  p.  115. 

^^^^  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  35,125,  f.  74;   C  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  S43,  848, 
'  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  512 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  p.  180;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  13. 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION  ,_J8g 


\  '; 


three  Acts  of  Parliament.  They,  therefore,  prayed  for  its 
revocation,  unless  these  ships  should  first  touch  at  an  Eng- 
lish port,  there  pay  the  customs  and  enter  into  a  bond  not 
to  carry  any  colonial  goods  elsewhere  than  to  England  or 
the  other  colonies.^  In  reply,  it  was  stated  that  the  design 
of  the  Duke  of  York  in  securing  this  permission  was  merely 
to  transport  planters  to  New  York,  and  that,  while  the 
desired  bond  regarding  the  return  voyage  would  be  conceded, 
no  Scottish  ship  could  possibly,  without  ruin  to  the  adven- 
turers, touch  at  an  English  port  on  her  outward  voyage,  *  by 
reason  of  demurrage  on  contrary  winds  or  other  accidents.' ^ 
Accordingly,  the  permission  was  modified,  and  permission 
was  granted  to  two  Scottish  vessels  to  sail  to  New  York 
with  not  less  than  four  hundred  planters,  provided  they 
took  with  them  only  commodities  of  England,  Scotland,  or 
Ireland  and  returned  from  New  York  either  to  some  other 
English  colony  or  to  England.^ 

While  Scotland  was  debarred  to  a  great  extent,  and  her 
ships  entirely,  from  direct  trade  with  the  English  colonies,* 
Scotsmen  as  subjects  of  Charles  II  could  legally  settle  in 
the  colonies  and  trade  there  on  the  same  terms  as  English- 

'  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  180,  181 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  16. 

'  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  181,  182 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  16,  17. 

'  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  516,  517.  A  letter  from  New  York,  dated  Dec.  31, 
1669,  states  that  these  long  expected  ships  had  not  yet  arrived.  C.  C. 
1669-1674,  p.  47. 

In  an  age  of  such  poor  means  of  communication,  there  was  naturally 
some  evasion  of  the  law.  In  1678,  Danby  approved  of  the  proposal  of  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Customs  to  send  a  correspondent  to  Scotland  to  give 
an  account  of  such  ships  as  might  come  there  directly  from  the  English 
colonies.    Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  p.  1000. 


■M 


/ 


90 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


b)» 


I' 


men.    For  some  time,  however,  this  right  was  not  fully 
conceded.    It  rested  on  a  weU-estabUshed  principle  of  the 
EngHsh  common  law.     Shortly  after  the  accession  of  James  I 
to  the  throne  of  England,  the  law  officers  gave  it  as  their  opin- 
ion that,  by  the  common  law,  Scotsmen  born  after  that  date 
were  EngHshmen  in  the  fuUest  sense  of  the  term.     ^'They 
were  born  within  the  King's  aHegiance,  and  they  must  be 
regarded  as  his  subjects,  as  far  as  his  dominions  extended. ''  ^ 
This  view  was  fully  sustained  in  1608  by  the  court  in  the 
weU-known  "Calvin's  Case.-^    According  to  this  decision, 
Scotsmen  serving  on  an  Enghsh  vessel  would  not  make  it 
unfree  under  the  terms  of  the  Navigation  Act  of  1660,  which 
provided  that  the  master  and  three-quarters  of  the  crew  of 
a  legaUy  qualified  ship  had  to  be  EngHsh.    The  English 
Parhament's  answer  to  the  Scottish  Navigation  Act  of  1661 
was  the  insertion  of  a  clause  in  the  Statute  of  Frauds  in  the 
Customs  of  1662,  providing  that  "any  of  his  Majesty's 
subjects  of  England,  Ireland,  and  his  plantations,  are  to  be 
accounted  EngUsh,  and  no  others."  ^ 

According  to  the  modern  doctrine  of  parliamentary 
sovereignty,  this  clause  unquestionably  superseded  the 
common  law  principle  apphcable  to  the  case,  and  would 
efiFectually  have  barred  Scotsmen  from  service  on  English 
ships,  since  it  would  have  subjected  them  to  the  severe 
penalties  imposed  on  vessels  with  ahen  crews.  But  the 
jurists  of  the  day  did  not  hold  that  ParHament  was  om- 

1  S.  R.  Gardiner,  England,  1603-1642, 1,  p.  326. 

'  /^^.  pp.  355,  356. 

'  13  &  14  Ch.  II,  c.  II,  §  vi. 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


.^ 


nipotent.^  For  some  time  the  point  at  issue  was  not  defi- 
nitely decided,  and  occasionally  a  ship  was  seized  on  account 
of  its  Scottish  crew,2  but  toward  the  end  of  the  century  it 
was  finally  established  that  the  common  law  principle,  and 
not  the  statute,  was  the  law  of  the  land.^ 

As  Ireland,  unlike  Scotland,  was  not  a  sister  kingdom 
whose  rank,  theoretically  at  least,  was  coordinate  with  that 
of  England,  its  treatment  under  the  colonial  system  was 
radically  different."*    The  Navigation  Act  of  1660  placed 

»  Cf.  C.  H.  McHwain,  The  High  Court  of  Parliament  and  its  Supremacy. 

2  In  1670,  Nicholas  Bake  wrote  to  WiUiamson,  complaining  that  a  ship 
had  been  seized  and  condemned  in  Barbados,  on  pretence  that  she  was  not 
manned  with  the  required  proportion  of  Englishmen,  the  Scotsmen  in  her 
crew  not  being  held  to  be  such.  He  added  that  these  Scotsmen  *  take  it 
wondrous  unkind  to  be  thus  debarred  the  Hberty  of  subjects.  Many  wish 
there  were  not  this  nice  distinction  between  the  nations.'  C.  O.  1/25,  17 ; 
C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  59,  60.  In  1687,  George  Muschamp,  the  South  Caro- 
lina Collector,  also  seized  a  ship  on  this  ground.  C.  0. 1/60, 19 ;  C.  O.  324/5, 
ff.  2-4.  In  1683,  (k)vernor  Cranfield  of  New  Hampshire  wrote  to  Blath- 
wayt :  "Here  are  severall  Scots  men  that  inhabitt  and  are  great  interlopers 
and  bring  in  quantities  of  goods  underhand  from  Scotland."  He  requested 
the  ruling  of  the  Attorney-General  on  the  legality  of  Scotsmen  acting  as  mer- 
chants or  factors  in  the  colonies,  stating  that  they  claimed  this  right  on  the 
ground  that  they  were  bom  within  the  King's  allegiance.  Goodrick,  Ran- 
dolph VI,  pp.  130-133. 

3  In  1698,  the  Solicitor-General,  Sir  John  Hawles,  held  that  a  Scotsman 
must  be  accounted  an  Enghshman  within  the  Acts  of  Navigation  despite 
this  clause  in  the  Act  of  1662.  Whatever  the  intent  of  Parliament  might 
have  been,  he  said,  since  by  law  a  man  born  in  Scotland  is  a  subject  of  Eng- 
land, and  since  the  two  kingdoms,  while  they  remain  united,  are  accounted 
but  one  nation  as  to  matters  of  privilege,  "y®  above  Clause  will  not  exclude 
a  Scotsman  from  the  privHedge  of  an  Enghsh  Subject."  Brit.  Mus.,  Add. 
MSS.  30,218,  ff.  249*'-25o**.    Cf.  Chalmers,  PoHtical  Annals,  p.  258. 

^  A  brief  synopsis  of  this  subject  is  in  the  MSS.  of  Marquess  of  Lothian 
(H.M.C.  1905),  pp.  301-304. 


i 


( 


' 


1.'} 


1 
t 

I 


M 


Mr 


92 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Irish  ships  on  an  equal  footing  with  those  of  England  and 
the  colonies/  and  it  was  likewise  fully  conceded  that  Irish- 
men, being  subjects  of  Charies  II,  could  under  the  law 
constitute  part  or  the  whole  of  the  crew  of  a  legaUy  manned 
English  vessel.2    Moreover,  it  was  distinctly  provided  that 
the  enumerated  articles,  and  naturally  aU  other  colonial 
products  as  weU,  could  be  shipped  directly  from  the  colonies 
to  Ireland.    Thus,  at  the  outset  Ireland  enjoyed  the  same 
pnvileges  in  the  colonial  trade  as  did  England,  or  any  one 
of  the  English  colonies.^    This  liberal  treatment  was  a 
result  of  an  ill-defined  tendency  to  regard  Ireland  as  one  of 
England's  foreign  plantations.     Such  a  view  was,  however  at 
variance  with  the  actual  facts,  for  Ireland's  status  was  a 
hybnd  one.    In  addition  to  being  an  Enghsh  plantation 
that  country  was  also  a  rival,  though  subject,  kingdom  with 
economic  interests  distinct  from  those  of  England.    Hence 
some  of  the  privileges  at  first  freely  conceded  to  Ireland  as 
a  colony  pure  and  simple   were  subsequently  withdrawn 
from  the  competing  kingdom. 

The  Staple  Act  of  1663  prohibited  the  direct  exportation 
from  Ireland  to  the  colonies  of  anything  but  servants,  horses 
and  provisions.^    As   foodstuffs   constituted   the   bulk   of 
Ireland's  exports,  this  prohibition  was  of  no  especial  eco- 

wuv'  ^1'  "'  ^*  l^'  ^^  ''  ^'  ""'  "^^  '^'    ^""  ^  ^«  I^g^  opinion  of  Sir 
William  Jones,  in  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  30,218  f  ,6 

^  13  &  14  Ch.  II,  c.  II,  §  vi.  '      ^   -3  . 

Enli?rf  ""I'^'^r^  "''  "^'^  '""^'''"'^  *°  '^'  '^^'  ^^^trictions  as  was 

l!nf  H  T  ^  T  "'  ^''°  ^"^'^^^'  ^^^  ^^^S  ''  t-bacco  in  both  Eng- 
land  and  Ireland.    12  Ch.  II,  c.  34.  ^ 

'  IS  Ch.  II,  c.  7,  §  V. 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION  93 

nomic  significance.^  Another  clause  in  this  Act,  however, 
was  of  greater  importance,  because  it  might  be  interpreted  to 
mean  that  in  future  the  enumerated  goods  could  not  be 
imported  directly  into  Ireland  from  the  colonies.^  But, 
as  very  frequently  happened  at  the  time,  this  clause  was 
obscurely  worded  and  the  purpose  of  the  legislature  was  far 
from  clear.  All  doubts  were  removed,  however,  by  an  Act 
of  Parliament  passed  in  1671,3  which  specificaUy  provided 
that  in  future  these  enumerated  articles  could  not  be  shipped 
directly  from  the  colonies  to  Ireland.* 

The  representatives  of  Barbados  in  London  had  vigorously 
opposed  the  passage  of  this  law,  which  in  the  form  that  it 
first  passed  the  House  of  Commons  would  have  prevented  the 

» In  1683,  Ireland's  total  exports  were  £570,342,  of  which  £44,862  went 
to  the  colonies.    Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  2902,  f.  137. 

2  Clause  ix  provided  that  any  officer  of  the  customs  in  England,  allowing 
these  enumerated  goods  to  be  carried  to  any  place  before  they  had  been 
landed  in  England,  should  forfeit  his  place. 

»  Sir  George  Downing  was  also  prominently  connected  with  the  passage 
of  this  law.  See  especially  Com.  Journal  IX,  pp.  213,  214,  224,  226,  237, 
238.  On  Oct.  31,  1670,  Downing  wrote  to  Sir  John  Shaw :  "Please  send  to 
my  house  to-morrow  the  biU  for  Plantation  trade  and  against  planting 
tobacco.  To-morrow  being  holiday  I  shaU  have  leisure  to  look  it  over." 
See  also  his  letter  of  Dec.  5,  1670,  about  this  matter.  Cal.  Treas.  Books, 
1669-1672,  pp.  679,  698. 

^  22  &  23  Ch.  II,  c.  26,  §§  X,  xi,  stated  that  the  mtent  of  clause  ix  in  the 
Act  of  1663  was  that  the  enumerated  goods  could  no  longer  be  sent  directly 
to  Ireland,  but  that  as  this  right  under  the  Act  of  1660  had  not  been  ex- 
pressly repealed,  these  commodities  continued  to  be  shipped  there  to  the 
manifest  disadvantage  of  England,  in  that  the  colonial  trade  "would  thereby 
m  a  great  measure  be  diverted  from  hence,  and  carried  elsewhere,  his  Maj- 
esty s  customs  and  other  revenues  much  lessened,  and  this  kingdom  not 
contmue  a  staple  of  the  said  commodities,  nor  that  vent  for  the  future  of 
tHe  victual  and  other  native  commodities  of  this  kingdom." 


iir 


i!f 


94 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


95 


II 
11 


importation  of  provisions  into  the  West  Indies  not  only  from 
Ireland,  but  from  New  England  as  well.  Owing  to  their 
efforts,  these  far-reaching  clauses  were  omitted  by  the  House 
of  Lords.^  The  chief  trade  affected  by  the  Act  of  167 1  was, 
however,  not  that  of  the  West  Indies,  but  that  with  Virginia 
and  Maryland,  for  Ireland  consumed  a  quantity  of  tobacco 
totally  disproportionate  to  its  wealth  and  population.^ 
The  complaints  of  the  Irish  merchants  were  voiced  by  the 
Lord-Lieutenant,  the  Earl  of  Essex,  who  wrote  in  1672  to 
Arlington  that  the  great  decay  in  Ireland^s  trade  was 
primarily  due  to  this  law.^  His  proposal  for  its  modifica- 
tion was  vigorously  opposed  by  the  EngUsh  Commissioners 
of  the  Customs,  who  reported  that,  according  to  the  usual 

1  On  Dec.  6,  167 1,  the  Assembly  of  Barbados  wrote  to  the  Committee  of 
Gentlemen  Planters  in  London,  that  they  had  heard  of  a  recent  Act  of  Par- 
liament which  prohibited  the  direct  shipment  of  their  sugars  to  Ireland ;  they 
had  given  Uttle  credit  to  this  report,  but  if  such  a  law  were  in  agitation,  the 
committee  should  try  to  prevent  its  passage.  C.  O.  31/2,  ff.  87-91 ;  C.  C. 
1669-1674,  p.  284.  In  reply,  the  Gentlemen  Planters  wrote  on  June  12, 
1672,  that  this  matter  had  been  regulated  during  the  last  session  of  ParHa- 
ment,  and  that,  though  they  were  in  constant  attendance,  the  bill  had 
passed  the  House  of  Commons  without  their  knowledge,  "butt  before  itt 
passed  the  house  of  Lords  wee  putt  in  many  objections  to  itt,  and  gott  seu- 
erall  Clauses  of  itt  left  out  &  altered,  which  would  have  wholy  excluded  a 
Supply  of  Provisions  not  onely  from  Ireland,  but  New  England  &  other  places 
allsoe,  which  was  as  much,  as  was  possible  to  be  Done."  C.  O.  31/2, 
ff.  100,  loi ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  369. 

2  "The  one  luxury  of  all  persons  was  tobacco,  and  Petty  estimated  that 
two-sevenths  of  a  man's  whole  expenditure  in  food  went  in  purchasing  this 
article."  A.  E.  Murray,  Commercial  Relations  between  England  and 
Ireland,  p.  20. 

'  "  Before  this  Act  this  Kingdome  had  setled  a  considerable  Trade  thither 
of  Beef,  Butter,  and  Tallow,  and  other  commodities  w^*^  w*'^  this  country 
abounds."    Essex  Papers  (Camden  Society,  1890)  I,  pp.  35,  36. 


practice,  the  trade  of  the  English  colonies  was  reserved  to 
their  mother  country,  and  that  to  permit  even  a  hmited 
amount  of  unrestricted  trade  between  them  and  Ireland 
would  be  prejudicial  to  England,  "for  by  such  an  allowance 
y^  Kingdome  of  Ireland  wiU  have  y®  oportunity  of  vending 
not  only  their  owne  manufactures,  but  those  also  of  other 
parts  of  Europe  in  y^  Plantacons,  when  only  those  of  Eng- 
land were  before  sold."  ^  This  report  was  approved  by  the 
government  and  Essex's  proposal  was  rejected.^ 

More  than  such  firm  adherence  to  principles  on  the  part 
of  the  English  government  was  required  to  secure  the  en- 
forcement of  this  law  in  Ireland,  where  public  opinion  was 
hostile.  The  EngUsh  Treasury  appointed  a  representative 
in  Ireland  to  prevent  the  landing  of  enumerated  goods  from 
the  colonies,^  and  the  Irish  customs  officials  were  especially 
instructed  not  to  permit  such  illegal  practices.*  But  the 
law  was  only  very  imperfectly  enforced.^  The  enumeration 
of  tobacco  was  extensively  evaded  by  vessels  from  the 

1  Ihid.  I,  pp.  54-56. 

"^  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1672-1675,  pp.  72,  73.  Essex  based  his  plea  for 
permission  for  twenty  Irish  ships  to  trade  freely  to  the  colonies  on  Ireland's 
sufferings  as  a  result  of  the  war.  In  addition  to  informing  him  of  the  adverse 
report  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs,  Treasurer  Clifford  emphasized 
the  fact  that  England  was  bearing  the  entire  burden  of  the  Dutch  war. 

'  Ibid.  1669-167 2,  p.  1280.  In  1678,  Danby  appointed  four  men  to  fer- 
ret out  infractions  of  this  law.  Ihid.  1676-1679,  p.  1046.  See  also  Treas. 
Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  5,  ff.  14,  42,  63-65. 

^  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1669-1672,  p.  1197;  ibid.  1672-1675,  p.  367. 

^  In  1673,  Treasurer  Clifford  enumerated  nine  ships  that  had  sailed  from 
the  colonies  (four  from  New  England,  one  from  Antigua,  one  from  Mont- 
serrat,  two  from  Nevis,  and  one  from  Virginia)  directly  to  Ireland  with 
such  prohibited  goods.    Ihid.  167 2-1675,  P-  35- 


4 


l! 


hi 


h  t 


E'i 


M: 


96 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


colonies  safling  directly  to  Irish  ports  under  "pretences 
of  Shipwrack  and  other  fraudulent  Devices. ' '  As  the  Farmers 
of  the  Irish  Revenue  connived  at  these  frauds,^  the  English 
government  was  helpless  until  it  was  held  that  the  English 
Admiralty  had  authority  to  seize  the  offending  vessels  in 
Ireland.^  During  the  years  1678  to  1680,  a  large  number  of 
vessels  were  seized  in  Ireland  on  warrants  of  the  English 
Admiralty  for  importing  tobacco  directly  from  the  colonies.^ 

1  The  English  merchants  complained  that,  although  tobacco  could  not 
be  legally  imported  into  Ireland  from  the  colonies,  "nevertheless  they  of 
Ireland  and  New  England  and  some  from  Virginia  have  and  do  come,  by 
consent  and  without  any  seizure,  for  none  can  make  a  seizure  but  the  Cus- 
tom House  officers,  who  in  Ireland  are  the  farmers'  servants  and  dare  not 
seize,  it  being  their  masters'  interest  to  have  all  they  can  brought  there." 
Cal.  Dom.  1676-1677,  pp.  586,  587. 

2  The  opinion  of  the  Attorney-General,  Sir  William  Jones,  may  be  found 
in  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  30,218,  flf.  40,  41.  See  also  P.  C.  Register 
Charles  II,  XV,  f.  119;  B.  T.  Trade  Papers  11,  189;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  845, 
846;  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  p.  170.  In  1686,  the  Commissioners  of 
the  Irish  Revenue  stated  '  that  while  the  law  was  in  force  during  the  nine 
years  already  mentioned,  all  the  plantation  goods  were  imported  direct 
into  Ireland  as  freely  as  when  the  trade  was  open  by  the  Navigation  Act.' 
This  statement  is  grossly  exaggerated,  and  was  made  with  the  direct  purpose 
of  securing  a  repeal  of  the  law.  C.  O.  324/4,  ff.  183-191 ;  C.  C.  1685-1688, 
pp.  152,  153. 

'  These  ships  were  chiefly  Irish.  Records  of  the  trials  of  approximately 
25  are  extant.  Nearly  all  of  this  tobacco  came  directly  from  Virginia  and 
Maryland;  only  a  small  quantity  was  imported  from  Antigua.  Virtually 
no  sugar  was  imported  in  these  vessels.  Details  may  be  found  in  Pubhc 
Record  Office,  Admiralty  High  Court,  Libels  118,  ff.  89,  91,  112-114;  119, 
ff.  I,  2,  16,  17,  39,  41,  62,  63,  71,  80,  97-99,  104,  124,  145,  148,  167,  170, 
173,  188 ;  120,  ff.  19,  61,  105.  One  of  the  most  interesting  cases  concerned 
the  Providence  of  London,  belonging  to  Colonel  John  Curtis  ( ?  Custis) 
of  Virginia,  which  had  landed  300  hogsheads  of  tobacco  in  Ireland  toward 
the  end  of  1678.  Ibid.  119,  ff.  loi,  176;  120,  f.  23;  Ormonde  MSS. 
(H.M.C.  1906),  New  Series  IV,  pp.  304,  305. 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


97 


Immediately  thereafter  the  state  of  affairs  again  changed. 
The  Act  of  167 1  prohibiting  the  direct  shipment  of  the 
enumerated  colonial  products  to  Ireland  contained  a  clause 
limiting  its  duration  to  nine  years.     Its  date  of  expiration 
fell  at  a  time  when  England  was  in  a  whirl  of  frenzied  excite- 
ment in  consequence  of  the  "Popish  Plot"  and  the  subse- 
quent abortive  proposal  to  exclude  James,  Duke  of  York, 
from  the  succession  to  the  throne.     Apparently  as  a  result 
of  its  absorption  m  these  heated  questions,  Parliament  inad- 
vertently failed  to  make  any  provision  for  the  continuation 
of  the  Act  of  1671.    Accordingly,  from  1680  on,  all  colonial 
commodities  could  again  be  freely  shipped  directly  to  Ire- 
land.   A  curious  and  entirely  unanticipated  state  of  affairs 
now  resulted,  for  in  the  meanwhile  the  Act  of  1673  liad 
been  passed  imposing  export  duties  on  the  enumerated 
articles,  unless  the  condition  of  the  bond  was  to  ship  them 
to  England  only.    On  the  expiration  of  the  Act  of  1671, 
the  law  regulating  the  terms  of  these  bonds  was  that  of 
1660,  which  provided  that  all  vessels  saiHng  from  England 
to  the  colonies  should  give  security  to  bring  these  products 
to  England  or  Ireland.    If  the  English  vessels  engaged  in 
this  trade  should  give  such  bonds,  according  to  the  terms  of 
the  law  of  1673,  the  export  duties  imposed  thereby  would 
then  become  due  on  all  these  products  laden  by  them, 
even  if  they  were  shipped  to  England.     In  order  to  obviate 
this  unforeseen  result,  which  would  greatly  have  hampered 
EngHsh  trade,  early  in  1681  an  Order  in  Council  was  issued, 
allowing  these  vessels  to  give  bonds  omitting  the  word 
Ireland,  in  which  case  the  duties  would  not  be  payable. 


98 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


f 


The  order,  however,  not  only  did  not  provide  any  remedy 
for  the  Irish  colonial  trade,  but  distinctly  stated  that  these 
duties  of  1673  were  payable  on  the  enumerated  products 
when  shipped  either  to  Ireland  or  to  the  Enghsh  colonies.^ 
Thus,  while  the  enumerated  goods  could,  after  the  expira- 
tion of  the  Act  of  1 67 1,  be  shipped  directly  to  Ireland,  ac- 
cording to  the  letter  of  another  law,  the  plantation  duties  of 
1673  then  became  due  thereon.    Although  the  law  on  this 
point  was  plain,  yet  the  result  was  mainly  fortuitous  and  was 
apparently  not  the  intent  of  the  legislature.    Hence  it  is  not 
surprising  that  there  ensued  in  the  colonies,  especially  in 
Maryland,  some  difficulties  based  on  a  misunderstanding 
of  the  law  and  a  natural  reluctance  to  pay  taxes  whose 
vaUdity  was  plainly  open  to  question  on  other  than  purely 
legal  grounds. 

In  Maryland,  the  proprietor.  Lord  Baltimore,  was  en- 
gaged at  this  time  in  a  characteristic  quarrel  with  the  Eng- 
lish customs  officials,  one  of  whom,  Nicholas  Badcock,^  wrote 
on  May  26,  1681,^  to  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  that 
four  ships  had  arrived  from  England  with  certfficates  of 
having  given  bonds  containing  the  word  Ireland,  and  that 
accordingly  he  had  demanded  the  1673  duties  on  the  tobacco 
laden  on  them,  which  he  claimed  would  amount  to  at  least 
£2500.  Payment  thereof,  he  further  wrote,  was  refused, 
with  the  support  of  Lord  Baltimore  and  the  Maryland 

1  C.  O.  1/46,  97;  C.  O.  324/4,  fif.  130-135;  P.  C.  Cal.  II,  pp.  15,  16; 
C.  C.  1681-1685,  P'  9- 

2  He  was  Surveyor  and  ComptroUer  of  the  Customs,  and  subordinate 
to  the  Collector.     C.  C.  1681-1685,  P-  164. 

3  C.  0.  1/146,  150;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  58,  59. 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


99 


Council,  who  told  him  not  to  meddle  in  this  matter.  Balti- 
more was  apparently  sincere  in  his  attitude,  being  pardon- 
ably ignorant  of  the  law.  ffis  letter  of  June  7,  1681,^  to 
Lord  Anglesey  shows  a  complete  failure  to  grasp  the  point 
at  issue.2  The  Enghsh  government  carefully  investigated 
the  charges  of  Badcock,  and  decided  to  reprimand  Balti- 
more severely  and  to  order  him  to  pay  the  £2500,  which  it 
was  claimed  the  revenue  had  lost  by  his  interference.^ 
Accordingly,  on  February  8,  1682,  the  Secretary  of  State, 
in  the  name  of  Charles  II,  wrote  a  vigorous  letter,  callmg 
Baltimore  sharply  to  account  for  obstructing  the  revenue 
officers  and  threatening  him  with  legal  proceedings  against 
his  charter.*  In  reply,  Baltimore  wrote  to  Sir  Leoline 
Jenkins,  then  Secretary  of  State,  that  he  was  very  much 
troubled  at  the  King's  letter,  and  that  the  difficulty  was  due 
to  his  ignorance  of  the  law  and  to  Badcock's  wilfully  con- 


I' 


1  C.  C.  1681-1685,  P-  67. 

^  On  July  10,  1681,  Nicholas  Badcock  again  wrote  to  the  Commissioners 
of  the  Customs,  saying  that  he  was  about  to  seize  the  tobacco  in  question, 
on  which  these  duties  had  not  been  paid,  but  had  been  deterred  by  threats  of 
the  Governor  and  Council.    C.  O.  5/723,  ff.  61-65 ;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  P-  85. 

»C.  O.  391/3,  f.  317;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  151,  157.  On  behalf 
of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs,  Sir  George  Downing  attended  the 
Lords  of  Trade,  and  informed  them  that  Lord  Baltimore  was  in  error 
and  that  the  plantation  duty  of  id.  was  payable  on  tobacco  shipped  from 
Maryland  to  Ireland.  On  Dec.  14,  1681,  the  Maryland  Collector  of  the 
Customs,  Christopher  Rousby,  with  whom  Baltimore  was  engaged  in  a 
serious  quarrel,  wrote  to  a  member  of  the  colonial  Council,  that  Baltunore's 
behavior  toward  Badcock  in  this  matter  of  the  id.  duty  had  been  very 
much  resented  by  the  Lords  of  the  Privy  CouncU.  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP- 
159,  160. 

*  P.  C.  Cal.  II,  pp.  28-31 ;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  'pp.  195,  196. 


■w 


I)         ! 


» 


II 


lOO 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


cealing  both  the  instructions  he  had  received  from  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Customs  and  the  Order  in  Coimcil 
of  1 68 1  enjoining  the  payment  of  the  plantation  duties  on 
shipments  to  Ireland.^ 

In  this  connection  the  English  government  renewed  its 
orders  for  the  collection  of  the  1673  plantation  duties  in 
such  cases.^  The  colonial  customs  service  was,  however, 
not  effectively  organized,  and  as  a  result  the  payment  of 
these  duties  was  extensively  evaded.^  In  order  to  put  a 
stop  to  this,  the  EngHsh  government  issued  orders  to  seize  the 
enumerated  goods  in  Ireland  in  case  the  duties  thereon  had 
not  been  paid/  The  Commissioners  of  the  Irish  Revenue 
thereupon  suggested  that  it  would  be  found  more  advanta- 
geous if,  in  Heu  of  the  export  duties  payable  in  the  colonies, 
one-half  thereof  should  be  collected  in  Ireland  and  remitted 
to  the  English  Exchequer.  This  suggestion  met  with  ap- 
proval, and  the  colonial  governors  were  then  instructed  to 

1  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  232,  233.    Cf.  pp.  241,  242. 

2  The  Maryland  Collectcr  of  the  Customs,  Christopher  Rousby,  was 
instructed  by  the  Customs  and  the  Treasury  to  collect  these  duties  when 
the  bond  mentioned  Ireland.     C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  iS9,  160. 

3  July  24,  1682,  the  Lords  of  the  Treasury  wrote  to  the  Earl  of  Arran, 
Lord  Deputy  of  Ireland,  that  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  had  in- 
formed them  that  several  ships  had  sailed  from  the  colonies  to  Ireland 
without  paying  the  1673  duties  and  that,  as  a  remedy  therefor,  they  had 
appointed  Mr.  Charles  Home  to  inspect  and  look  after  the  plantation  trade 
of  Ireland.    Ormonde  MSS.  (H.M.C.  191 1),  New  Series  VI,  pp.  404,  405. 

^  "My  Lord  Treasurer  Sent  to  the  Lord  Lieut  of  Ireland  the  opinions 
of  the  four  Barons  of  the  Exchequer,  Attorney  and  SoUcitor  Generall, 
that  the  Enumerated  Goods  coming  from  the  Plantations  without  having 
paid  the  Plantation  Duty  might  be  seized  and  Recovered  in  Ireland,  and 
Orders  were  given  to  all  Officers  accordingly."    C.  O.  1/58,  84. 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION     10 1 


desist  from  collecting  the  1673  duties  on  tobacco  exported 
to  Ireland.^ 

This  arrangement  had  been  in  effect  only  a  very  short 
time,2  ^hen,  much  to  the  annoyance  of  the  Irish  merchants,^ 
Parliament  in  1685  revived  the  Act  of  167 1  prohibiting  the 
direct  exportation  of  these  enumerated  goods  to  Ireland.^ 
Owing  to  their  complaints,  the  Irish  government  worked 
actively  to  have  the  law  changed.     On  February  15,  1686,^ 
the  Commissioners  of  the  Irish  Revenue  wrote  to  the  Lord- 
Lieutenant,  stating  that  the  half  duty  collected  in  Ireland 
on  the  enumerated  colonial  products  had  during  the  last 
six  months  of  1685  amounted  to  £5170,  which  was  more 
than  the  entire  sum  that  had  been  collected  in  all  the 
colonies  during  ten  years  on  account  of  the  plantation  duties. 
Consequently,  they  argued,  that  this  arrangement  was  far 
more  advantageous  to  England  than  was  the  total  prohibi- 
tion which  had  just  been  revived  and  which  had  never  been 
effectively   enforced.     Moreover,  they   claimed   that  the 
revival  of  the  law  of  1671  would  deprive  Ireland  of  her  entire 
colonial  commerce,  on  account  both  of  the  additional  hazard 

1  Ibid.;  C.  O.  324/4,  ff.  183-191 ;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  152,  153- 

2  Cf.  Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  10,  f.  50- 

3  "The  merchants  in  this  country  (Ireland)  are  much  dejected  at  the 
revival  of  the  act  prohibiting  them  to  trade  directly  to  the  Plantations,  and 
especially  at  the  prohibition  of  carrying  hides  and  tallow  into  England." 
July  14,  1685,  Sir  John  Perceval  to  Sir  Robert  Southwell.  MSS.  of  Earl 
of  Egmont  (H.M.C.  1909)  II,  p.  157-    Cf.  p.  155- 

4  Com.  Journal  IX,  p.  682 ;  i  Jac.  II,  c.  17.  This  law  was  subse- 
quently continued  and  virtually  made  perpetual.  4  &  5  W.  &  M.  c.  24 ; 
II  &  12  W.  Ill,  c.  13,  §  ii;  5  Geo.  I,  c.  11,  §  xix. 

^  C.  O.  324/4,  ff.  183-191 ;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  152,  153. 


Ii 


Il 


11 

il 


II 


I 


I02 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


and  time  required  by  an  indirect  trade  through  England, 
and  the  expense  and  formaUties  necessitated  in  passing 
through  the  Enghsh  customs.    The  Lord-Lieutenant,  the 
Earl  of  Clarendon,  sent  this  memorial,  which  he  had  ordered 
prepared  in  consequence  of  the  complaints  of  the  Irish  mer- 
chants, to  the  English  Lord  Treasurer,  and  in  his  accompany- 
ing letter  heartUy  supported  its  recommendations  as  advan- 
tageous both  to  England  and  to  Ireland.     He  wrote  that 
he  had  heard  the  English  debates  on  this  subject,  'which 
were  not  as  ingenuous  as  I  could  have  wished,  or  as  such 
debates  ought  to  be,'  and  suggested  that  the  King  dispense 
with  the  law  for  a  year  or  two,  as  a  trial,  in  order  to  see  if 
the  Enghsh  revenue  would  suffer  at  all.^ 

This  recommendation  laid  stress  only  on  the  fiscal  side  of 
the  subject  and  ignored  entirely  the  broader  question  of 
colonial  policy.    This  phase  of  the  subject  was  strongly 
emphasized  by  the  Enghsh  Commissioners  of  the  Customs,^ 
to  whom  the  Irish  memorial  had  been  submitted  for  report. 
They  brushed  aside  the  question  of  revenue  and  pointed 
out  that  'the  true  interest  of  England,  as  is  also  the  usage 
of  ah  nations,  is  to  keep  the  Plantation-trade  to  herself.'  ^ 
After  answering  in  detail  the  Irish  arguments,  some  of  which 
were  grossly  exaggerated,   they  concluded  their  adverse 
report  with  the  general  statement,  that  the  position  of  Ire- 
land and  its  cheap  provisions  gave  the  Irish  merchants  a 
great  advantage,  so  much  so  that,  if  they  were  aUowed  to 

'  C  O.  324/4,  ff.  178-183;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  160,  161. 

»  Sir  Dudley  North  was  at  this  time  a  prominent  member  of  the  board. 

»  C  O.  324/4,  ff.  207-213 ;   C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  166,  167. 


tl 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


103 


trade  on  equal  terms  with  those  of  England,  they  would 
in  all  probabiHty  deprive  that  kingdom  in  a  great  measure 
of  its  flourishing  trade  with  its  own  colonies. 

In  reply,  the  Irish  Commissioners  prepared  another  de- 
tailed memorial,^  again  laying  most  stress  on  the  fiscal  side 
of  the  question  and  showing  conclusively  that  the  English 
revenue  would  to  no  extent  whatsoever  suffer  from  their 
proposal.  They  also  claimed  that  there  was  no  conceivable 
likelihood  of  Ireland  drawing  the  plantation  trade  away  from 
England  and  that  the  prohibition  to  import  the  enumerated 
articles  directly  into  Ireland  was  of  absolutely  no  benefit 
to  England,  but  placed  an  unnecessary  and  onerous  burden 
on  the  Irish  merchants.  This  memorial  was  skilfully  com- 
posed, but  whatever  chance  of  impartial  consideration  its 
able  arguriients  might  otherwise  have  had  was  lost  by  the 
tactless  introduction  of  some  direct  charges  of  corruption 
against  EngUsh  customs  officials  in  Bristol  and  in  some 
other  out-ports.  The  Conmiissioners  of  the  Customs  were 
plainly  annoyed  at  these  accusations,  and  in  their  final  report 
of  May  12,  1686,2  refused  to  budge  from  their  former  opm- 
ion,  stating  that  the  entire  body  of  the  plantation  laws  was 
under  their  care  and  control,  and  that  it  was  their  business 
to  correspond  with  the  officials  in  England  and  in  the  colonies 
and  to  maintain  a  uniform  and  efficient  system.  This  duty, 
they  claimed,  they  could  not  perform,  'nor  be  responsible 
for  it,  if  so  great  and  near  a  kingdom  as  Ireland  be  freely 
let  into  the  trade  and  suffered  to  trade  directly  with  the 

1  C.  O.  324/4,  ff.  191-206;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  175-177. 
^  C.  O.  324/4,  ff.  213-218;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  187,  188. 


n 


104 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Colonies.'  The  Lords  of  Trade  accepted  this  report,  and 
fresh  orders  were  issued  for  the  enforcement  of  the  Act  of 
1671.^ 

During  this  controversy,  the  Earl  of  Clarendon  had 
suggested  that  the  King  should,  as  an  experiment,  tem- 
porarily dispense  with  the  Act  of  1671,  and  cited  an  instance 
as  a  precedent  for  the  legality  of  such  action.  In  the 
constitutional  disputes  imder  the  last  two  Stuarts  this 
right  of  the  Crown  to  dispense  with  the  execution  of  Acts 
of  ParHament  figured  prominently,  but,  in  general,  it  was 
used  sparingly  in  connection  with  the  laws  of  trade  and 
navigation.  2  Although  it  was  directly  contrary  to  the  law, 
the  government  authorized  Spanish  vessels  to  trade  to  the 
English  West  Indies  for  slaves.^  This  power  was,  however, 
used  on  a  comprehensive  scale  only  during  the  two  Dutch 

1  C.  O.  324/4,  f.  225;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  204,  207,  264;  p.  C.  Cal.  II, 
p.  92.  At  this  time  were  reported  a  number  of  evasions  of  the  law.  C.  C. 
1685-1688,  p.  171 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  II,  pp.  86,  87. 

2  In  1663,  on  reading  a  petition  and  some  complaints  about  violations 
of  the  Navigation  Act,  the  House  of  Commons  resolved  that  His  Majesty- 
be  desired  to  issue  a  proclamation  for  the  effectual  observance  of  this  law 
"without  any  Dispensation  or  Contrivance  whatsoever,"  whereby  the  Act 
may  be  violated,  and  to  recall  such  dispensations  if  any  had  been  granted. 
Com.  Journal  VIII,  pp.  521,  522.  As  has  already  been  pointed  out,  espe- 
cial privileges  were  on  a  few  occasions  granted  to  Scotsmen.  See  ante,  p.  88. 
In  1661,  in  connection  with  the  case  of  three  foreign  Jews,  who  had  resided 
in  Barbados  and  were  recommended  to  Charles  II  by  the  King  of  Den- 
mark, the  Council  for  Foreign  Plantations  reported  on  the  whole  question 
of  allowing  Jews  to  trade  in  the  colonies.  The  Council  left  the  larger  ques- 
tion open,  but  advised  giving  a  special  license  to  these  three  men  to  reside  in 
any  English  colony.  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  140.  On  becoming  English  sub- 
jects, foreigners  were  of  course  allowed  to  trade  in  the  colonies. 

'  See  postj  Chapter  V. 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


105 


wars,  when  the  demands  of  the  navy  for  men  ^  made  it 
advisable  to  permit  EngUsh  merchants  to  employ  foreign 
seamen  and  ships.  On  March  6,  1665,  an  Order  in  Council 
was  issued,  dispensing  with  the  Navigation  Act  in  certain 
branches  of  the  European  trade,  and  allowing  the  employ- 
ment by  English  merchants  of  foreign  ships  navigated  by 
foreigners  in  the  colonial  trade.^  On  the  conclusion  of  the 
war,  in  1667,  this  dispensation  was  revoked;^  but  in  1672, 
on  the  outbreak  of  fresh  hostilities  with  the  Dutch,  it  was 
again  issued  ^  and  remained  in  force  until  the  conclusion  of 
peace.^ 

1  During  peace  the  navy  employed  3000  to  4000  seamen,  but  in  1665, 
30,000  were  needed.    Pepys  Diary,  Jan.  15,  1665. 

2  The  dispensation  did  not  extend  to  the  enumeration  clauses  or  to 
the  Staple  Act  of  1663.  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  V,  ff.  68,  %2> ;  C.  O. 
324/4,  ff.  219-224;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  392,  393,  403,  404.  Cf.  also  Cal. 
Treas.  Books,  1660-1667,  p.  714.  For  some  instances  of  foreign  ships 
being  employed  in  this  trade,  see  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  1459,  1469,  i544; 
P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  466-474.  On  Feb.  28,  1665,  the  Farmer  of  the  Customs 
had  reported  that  the  Act  of  Navigation  ought  not  to  be  dispensed  with 
in  the  colonial  trade,  as  it  would  give  the  French  and  other  foreigners  too 
much  insight  into  it.  The  French,  they  said,  had  already  begun  to  inquire 
busily  and  had  imitated  the  English  by  planting  tobacco  in  France,  besides 
developing  their  own  plantations  in  the  West  Indies.  C.  C.  1661-1668, 
no.  947. 

3  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  434;  British  Royal  Proclamations,  1603-1783  (Am. 
Antiqu.  Soc.  191 1),  pp.  114-116. 

*P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  X,  ff.  237,  238;  C.  O.  140/3,  ff-  323-325; 
P.  C.  Cal.  1,  pp.  576,  577 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  4i4-  See  also  S.  P.  Dom. 
Ch.  II,  Entry  Book  36,  ff.  327,  328 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  633 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674, 

P-  553- 

^  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  599.  Cf.  pp.  612-614.  The  proclamation  of  March 
II,  1674,  recalled  this  dispensation.  British  Royal  Proclamations,  1603- 
1783  (Am.  Antiqu.  Soc.  1911),  pp.  119,  120. 


i 


J 


io6 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


The  various  Acts  of  Parliament,  whose  provisions,  inter- 
pretation, and  development  have  been  described,  constituted 
the  economic  framework  of  the  old  colonial  system,  which 
for  nearly  two  centuries  regulated  the  course  of  trade  in 
the  British  Empire.     They  were  a  direct  expression  of  the 
current  economic  theory  of  colonization,  and  their  aim  was 
to  secure  to  England  the  fullest  possible  benefits  from  the 
possession  of  over-sea  dominions.    The  primary  function 
of  the  colony  was  to  foster  the  development  of  English  sea 
power,  commerce,  and  industry.    But,  apart  from  its  eco- 
nomic aims,  it  was  reaUzed  that  this  system  of  regulating 
imperial    trade   possessed   other   distinct   advantages.    It 
ine\dtably  led  to  the  limitation  of  commerce  to  a  few  well- 
defined  routes,  and  thus  greatly  facihtated  the  task  of 
protection.    Furthermore,  it  was  perceived  that  the  closer 
the  commercial  relations  between  colony  and  metropoHs, 
the  more  firmly  knit  would  become  the  poHtical  ties  bind- 
ing them  together.    Thus  Charles  Davenant  pointed  out 
that  'the  Bent  and  Design  of  the  Navigation  Act  was  to 
make  those  Colonies  as  much  dependant  as  possible  upon 
their  Mother-Country,'  and  that  any  continued  violations 
thereof  would  have  dangerous  consequences  which  could  not 
easily  be  cured.    For,  he  said,  if  the  colonies  should  fall  into 
trading  independently  of  England,  in  course  of  time,  they 
might  erect  themselves  into  independent  commonwealths, 
which  ultimately  we  should  not  be  able  to  master ;  "  by  which 
means  the  Plantations,  which  now  are  a  main  Branch  of  our 
Wealth,  may  become  a  Strength  to  be  turned  against  us."  ^ 

^  Davenant,  op.  cit.  II,  pp.  85,  86. 


I' 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


107 


Such  a  system  of  rigid  control  over  the  commerce  of  de- 
pendent communities  was  the  current  practice  of  all  colo- 
nizing nations.  It  necessarily  implied  the  subordination  of 
the  colony's  economic  interests  to  those  of  the  metropolis, 
and  as  a  result  in  theory  at  least,  if  not  always  fully  in 
practice,  it  is  repugnant  to  modern  economic,  political,  and 
ethical  ideas.  But  these  modem  ideas  are  largely  the  result 
of  changed  conditions  and  were  totally  inapplicable  in  the 
seventeenth  century,  when  they  would  have  seemed,  and 
correctly  so,  merely  the  vagaries  of  an  unpractical  Utopian 
out  of  touch  with  the  forces  that  were  making  history.  In 
general,  the  economists  of  the  day  supported  with  substantial 
unanimity  the  principles  upon  which  the  system  was  based, 
and  even  those  with  the  most  liberal  tendencies  did  not  ques- 
tion their  application.^  England  sanctioned  the  movement 
of  expansion;  and,  although  it  was  mainly  the  work  of  private 
enterprise,  she  had  in  so  doing  to  assume  many  onerous 
burdens,  but  with  the  distinct  purpose  of  gaining  in  return 
specific  benefits.  It  would  have  been  deemed  the  height  of 
folly  to  leave  colonial  trade  unfettered  and  to  allow  foreign 

1  The  four  writers  of  the  period  holding  the  most  Kberal  views  regarding 
trade  were  Sir  Josiah  Child,  Charies  Davenant,  Nicholas  Barbon,  and  Sir 
Dudley  North.  W.  J.  Ashley,  Surveys  Historic  and  Economic,  pp.  268, 
269.  Of  these.  Child  and  Davenant  were  staunch  uf)holders  of  the  colonial 
system.  Barbon  and  North  did  not  directly  discuss  this  question,  but 
from  their  general  underlying  views,  especially  those  of  North,  it  might  be 
inferred  that  in  some  respects  at  least  their  approval  would  have  been 
withheld.  Bauer,  "Barbon,"  in  Palgrave's  Diet,  of  Pol.  Economy ;  PfeiflEer, 
"Barbon,"  in  Revue  d'Histoire  des  Doctrines  Economiques  et  Sociales  IV, 
pp.  63  et  seq.;  Dudley  North,  Discourses  upon  Trade  (London,  1691); 
Roger  North,  Lives  of  the  Norths  (London,  1826)  I,  pp.  351,  352. 


m 


io8 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


li 


rivals  to  reap  where  England  had  sown  and  where  she  was 
still  obliged  to  expend  considerable  energy  in  preventing  the 
intrusion  of  lawless  marauders  and  well-organized  enemies. 
The  system  was  by  no  means  one-sided  and  did  not  appear 
to  be  so  to  the  men  of  the  day.  As  compensation  for  the 
restrictions  on  the  trade  of  the  colonies,  England  protected 
them  and  gave  such  of  their  products  as  were  needed  and 
wanted  a  monopoly  of  the  home  market. 

The  chief  positive  burden  which  England  assiuned  was  that 
of  imperial  defence,  in  return  for  which  it  was  considered 
justifiable  to  restrict  and  mould  the  economic  life  of  the 
colonies.    At  various  times  during  the  Restoration  period 
considerable  trouble  was  experienced  with  New  England, 
whose  recalcitrant  attitude  toward  imperial  control  threat- 
ened to  dislocate  the  colonial  system  before  it  was  even 
estabUshed.    In  1675,  when  matters  were  nearing  a  crisis, 
was  prepared  an  able  memorial,  evidently  by  Robert  Mason, 
the  proprietor  of  New  Hampshire,  wherein  was  clearly 
expressed    the   prevailing   view   regarding   the   respective 
rights  and  duties  of  metropoh's  and  colony.^     This  paper 
urged  the  government  to  send  to  New  England  commis- 
sioners, who  should  'endeavor  to  show  the  advantages  which 
may  arise  to  them  by  a  better  confidence  and  correspondence 
with  England  and  by  their  cheerful  submission  to  those 
ordinary  duties,  customs,  and  regulations,  which  are  set 
upon  trade  in  all  other  His  Majesty's  dominions,  colonies, 
and  plantations.'    These   commissioners  were  further  to 

»C.  O.  1/34,  nos.  68,  69;   C.  O.  5/903,  ff.  9-13;   C.  C.  1675-1676, 
pp.  222-224.    Cf.  C.  O.  1/18,  46;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  706. 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


109 


point  out  how  inconsistent  exemption  from  these  rules 
would  be  with  the  fact  that  the  King  of  England  "in  all 
Treaties,  and  by  his  Fleets  at  Sea  takes  New-England  into 
the  Common  Protection,  and  provides  for  its  Safety  as 
belonging  to  this  Crowne,  and  may  therefore  expect  some 
Measure  out  of  the  benefitt  that  arises  to  them  in  their 
Trade  by  their  being  English  and  happy  subjects  of  this 
Crowne." 

This  same  idea  was  also  clearly  expressed  by  John  Cary, 
who  asserted  that,  under  a  properly  regulated  system  of 
colonial  trade,  England  "standing  like  the  Sun  in  the  midst 
of  its  Plantations  would  not  only  refresh  them,  but  also 
draw  Profits  from  them;  and  indeed  it's  a  matter  of 
exact  Justice  it  should  be  so,  for  from  hence  it  is  Fleets  of 
Ships  and  Regiments  of  Soldiers  are  frequently  sent  for 
their  Defence,  at  the  charge  of  the  Inhabitants  of  this 
Kingdom,  besides  the  equal  Benefit  the  Inhabitants  there 
receive  with  us  from  the  Advantages  expected  by  the  Issue 
of  this  War,  the  Security  of  Religion,  Liberty,  and  Property, 
towards  the  Charge  whereof  they  contribute  little  though  a 
way  may  and  ought  to  be  found  out  to  make  them  pay  more, 
by  such  insensible  Methods  as  are  both  rational  and  prac- 
ticable." 1 

1  John  Cary,  An  Essay  on  the  State  of  England  (Bristol,  1695),  pp.  70, 
^71.  Cary  repeated  these  views  in  a  letter  dated  Jan.  31,  1696,  and 
addressed  to  a  correspondent,  who  had  objected  to  his  proposal  to  treat 
Ireland's  trade  like  that  of  the  colonies.  He  pointed  out  that  all  nations 
pursued  a  similar  policy  toward  their  colonies,  and  that  England  was  en- 
titled to  some  return  from  the  fact  that  they  were  defended  and  secured  at 
her  expense.    Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  5540,  ff.  59-61. 


♦1 


no 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


1l 


As  the  burden  of  imperial  defence  fell  upon  England,  it 
could  also  be  argued  conversely  that,  whenever  there  was  a 
conflict  of   interest   between   colony   and  metropoHs,  the 
former  should  necessarily  be  subordinated  to  the  latter. 
For  the  heart  of  the  Empire,  England,  had  to  be  considered 
before  aU  else,  since  upon  its  sound  condition  depended 
the   very  existence  of   the  colonies.     Without  the  active 
and  potential  support  of  England,  they  would  have  been 
at  the  mercy  of  other  European  powers,  and  would  un- 
questionably have  been   converted  into   dependencies  of 
HoUand,  Spain,  or  France,  with  the  inevitable  loss  of  their 
characteristic    institutions    and  civHization.    Hence,  even 
from  the  colonial  standpoint,  there  was  a  ^dtal  necessity  of 
having  a  prosperous  and  powerful  metropoHs  able  to  hold 
its  protecting  aegis  over  them.     Shortly  after  the  Restora- 
tion, Sir  John  Wolstenhohne,  one  of  the  Farmers  of  the 
Customs,  wrote  to  Massachusetts,  expressing  his  gradfica- 
tion  at  their  declared  readiness  to  obey  the  laws  of  trade  and 
navigation,  which  tend  "so  much  to  advance  his  Majestys 
service  and  the  true  English  interest,  wherein  I  conceave 
the  EngUsh  plantations  are  as  much  concerned,  if  wayed 
with  judgment  and  discretion,  as  ourselves  here ;   for  if  we 
doe  not  maintaine  here  the  honour  and  reputation  of  his 
Majesty  and  the  nation  which  must  be  by  our  navigation 
and  shipping,  which  are  our  waUs,  the  plantadons  wiU  be 
subject  to  be  devoured  by  straingers."  ^    Simflarly,  John 
Gary,  the  Bristol  merchant  whose  opinions  have  been  often 
cited  in  this  work,  wrote  to  a  correspondent  in  Antigua : 

1  Hutchinson  Papers  II,  p.  io8. 


f 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


III 


"The  true  Interest  of  England  is  its  Trade;  if  this  receives 
a  Baffle,  England  is  neither  able  to  Support  its  Self,  nor 
the  Plantations  that  depend  upon  it,  &  then  consequenfly 
they  must  crumble  into  So  many  distinct  independJ  Gov- 
ernm^'  &  thereby  becoming  weak  will  be  a  Prey  to  any 
Stronger  Power  w*'^  shall  attacque  them."  ^ 

From  the  very  nature  of  the  Empire's  political  organiza- 
tion it  followed  inevitably  that  the  main  burden  of  its 
defence  had  to  be  assumed  by  England.  As  was  said  in 
1683,  "small  divided  remote  Governments  being  seldom 
able  to  defend  themselves,  the  Burthen  of  the  Protecting 
them  all,  must  lye  upon  the  chiefest  Kingdom  of  England, 
...  In  case  of  war  with  forraign  Nations,  England  com- 
monly beareth  the  whole  Burthen  and  charge,  whereby 
many  in  England  are  utterly  undone."^  Up  to  1689,  when 
began  the  Second  Hundred  Years'  War  with  France,  this 
task  of  protecting  the  Empire  was  not  an  especially  arduous 
one.  Yet  even  during  these  comparatively  peaceful  years, 
there  were  several  important  naval  wars  —  with  the  United 

1  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  5540,  f.  76. 

2  England's  Guide  to  Industry  (London,  1683),  pp.  75-77.  The  author 
of  this  ingenious  booklet  maintained  that  the  chief  impediment  to  Eng- 
land's greatness  was  the  existence  of  distinct  governments,  divided  from  one 
another  by  customs  barriers,  in  England,  Scotland,  Ireland,  the  Channel 
Islands,  the  Isle  of  Man,  and  the  various  colonies.  "There  is  no  doubt," 
he  said,  "that  the  same  people  far  and  wide  dispersed  must  spend  more 
upon  their  Government  and  Protection  than  the  same  Hving  compactly." 
His  pohcy  of  unification  would  apparently  have  impUed  the  abrogation  of 
the  laws  of  trade,  for  in  his  opinion  it  was  a  "dammage"  to  England's  trade 
with  Barbados  and  the  other  colonies  that  goods  should  be  enumerated. 
Ihid.  pp.  75-78. 


I 


112 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


)    ! 


li 


tm 


Provinces,  Spain,  and  France.  International  rivalry  was 
acute,  and  the  colonizing  maritime  powers  were  watching 
one  another  most  jealously  and  closely.^  Thus,  during  both 
peace  and  war,  the  burden  of  defence  was  far  from  a  neg- 
ligible one.  While  England  did  not  shirk  the  task  and, 
despite  much  muddhng,  performed  it  without  encountering 
any  irretrievable  disasters,  she  expected  the  colonies  not 
to  remain  supine,  but  to  do  their  share.  What  exactly  this 
share  was  could  naturally  not  be  precisely  determined  at 
this,  or  at  any  future,  time ;  and  ultimately,  one  hundred 
years  later,  it  was  upon  the  rock  of  imperial  defence  that 
the  loosely  constructed,  unseaworthy  old  Empire  shattered 
itself.2  But  prior  to  the  troublous  days  preceding  the 
American  Revolution,  there  existed  a  general,  though 
necessarily  somewhat  vague,  understanding  of  the  respec- 
tive duties  of  metropoUs  and  colony  in  matters  of  de- 
fence. The  understanding  that  obtained  in  the  eighteenth 
century  was  not  based  upon  theoretical  considerations, 
but  had  evolved  empirically  in  actual  practice.  Many  of 
the  precedents  upon  which  it  was  based  date  from  the 
experiences  of  the  Restoration  period. 

It  was  at  that  time  clearly  realized  that  the  safety  of  the 

1  The  French  Ambassador  in  England  sent  to  his  government  copies  of 
the  various  state  papers  illustrating  English  policy  and  practice,  such  as 
the  Act  of  Navigation  of  1660  and  other  statutes,  the  commission  and  in- 
structions of  the  Council  of  Foreign  Plantations  of  1660  and  also  those  of 
the  Council  of  Trade  of  the  same  year,  the  CaroHna  charter,  various  com- 
missions issued  to  colonial  officials,  etc.  Paris,  Archives  des  Affaires  Etran- 
geres,  Correspondance  PoHtique  Angleterre  74,  f.  379 ;  88,  f.  65 ;  105,  ff. 
205,  207,  220-230;    no,  ff.  297  et  seq. 

*  See  Beer,  British  Colonial  Policy,  1 754-1 765. 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


113 


Empire  depended  upon  adequate  sea  power.  'Those  who 
are  masters  at  sea  in  those  parts  may  upon  occasion  take 
all  these  islands/  wrote  the  author  of  a  contemporary  account 
of  the  Leeward  Islands.^  During  time  of  war,  the  EngHsh 
na\y  was  active  in  colonial  waters,  but  it  was  by  no  means 
large  enough  to  afford  complete  protection.  Under  the  cir- 
cumstances, such  episodes  as  the  French  conquest  of  the 
Leeward  Islands  and  the  successful  Dutch  raid  on  the  mer- 
chantmen in  Virginia  waters  during  the  war  of  1665  to  1667 
are  not  surprising.  The  colonies  were  able  to  be  of  very 
little  assistance  in  these  naval  wars,  but  it  should  not  be 
forgotten  that  the  reconquest  of  the  Leeward  Islands  was 
largely  due  to  the  energy  of  Barbados  and  its  pubUc-spirited 
governors,  the  two  Lords  Willoughby.  Moreover,  Massa- 
chusetts not  only  contributed  supplies  to  this  Barbadian 
expedition,  but  at  the  same  time  made  a  valuable  present 
of  masts  to  the  royal  navy.^  The  Jamaica  buccaneers 
likewise  were  an  important  factor  in  inducing  Spam  to  make 
peace  on  terms  satisfactory  to  England.  During,  times  of 
peace,  ships  of  the  navy  were  also  at  various  periods  sta- 
tioned in  America,  some  in  the  West  Indies  and  others  in 
Chesapeake  Bay  and  at  Boston,  for  the  purpose  of  protect- 
ing the  colonies  and  of  suppressing  piracy  and  illegal  trade. 
During  this  period  no  extensive  land  operations  were 
carried  on,  and  hence  there  was  no  need  for  active  colonial 
cooperation.  The  proposed  expedidon  against  Canada, 
planned  by  the  English  military  authorities  in  the  war  of 

*  C.  O.  1/42,  z^)  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  222,  223.  . 
^  See  post,  Chapter  XI. 


I 


'  I 


III 


I  i 


It 


114 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


I 


1665-1667,  did  not,  however,  enlist  any  support  from  the 
New  England  colonies,  who  claimed  that  the  season  was 
too  far  advanced  for  a  successful  campaign.^  In  general, 
England  assumed  without  hesitation  the  duty  of  naval 
protection  and  also  full  responsibiHty  for  military  opera- 
tions during  war  with  a  European  power.  Whatever 
questions  arose  as  to  the  respective  obligations  of  metrop- 
oHs  and  colonies  concerned  the  protection  of  the  colonies 
during  time  of  peace.  England  consistently  sought  to 
limit  her  obHgations  to  defending  the  colonies  against  Euro- 
pean powers  and  to  make  the  colonies  assume  full  respon- 
sibiHty for  defence  against  the  Indians.^  Hence,  as  far  as 
it  was  possible,  the  number  and  size  of  the  permanent  gar- 
risons in  America  was  limited.  The  condition  of  affairs, 
however,  was  such  that  some  soldiers  had  to  be  maintained 
in  the  colonies  at  the  expense  of  the  EngHsh  Exchequer. 

Of  the  permanent  military  estabhshment,  the  greater 
part  was  located  in  the  West  Indies,  which  were  most  ex- 
posed to  sudden  onslaught  from  England's  rivals.  For  a 
number  of  years  a  considerable  force  was  stationed  in 
Barbados,^  and  until  toward  the  end  of  the  period  a  garrison 

1  See  post,  Chapter  XI. 

2  In  1681,  Lord  Culpeper  suggested  'the  uniting  of  aU  the  King's  sub- 
jects in  America  to  help  each  other  in  case  of  foreign  enemies,  rebellions, 
and  Indians,  in  such  proportions  as  the  King  shall  direct ' ;  and  in  particular 
that  *  no  war  or  peace  with  Indians  should  be  made  without  the  knowledge 
and  assent  of  the  Governor  and  Council  of  Virginia,  the  only  Colony  that 
the  King  can  call  his  own/  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP- 127,  128.  Later,  the  first 
part  of  this  statesman-like  proposal  was  adopted  by  the  English  government. 

»  In  1670,  Barbados  asked  that  Sir  Tobias  Bridge's  regiment  be  disbanded, 
as  it  was  of  no  use  in  time  of  peace.  C.  O.  31/2,  f.  i ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp. 
116-117. 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION  115 

was  maintained  in  Jamaica  at  the  expense  of  the  EngHsh 
Exchequer.^  In  St.  Kitts,  where  France  also  had  a  colony, 
a  small  force  was  permanently  estabhshed.^  Similarly, 
on  accoimt  of  the  danger  of  French  invasion,  a  regular 
garrison  was  stationed  in  New  York,  but  the  EngHsh  gov- 
ernment paid  only  part  of  this  expense,  contributing  £1000 
yearly  to  the  Duke  of  York  for  this  purpose.^  For  several 
years  after  Bacon's  rebelHon  -—  the  force  sent  from  England 
for  its  suppression,  it  was  asserted,  cost  the  EngHsh  tax- 
payer more  than  £100,000  4  — a  body  of  regular  soldiers 
was  also  maintained  in  Virginia.^  In  the  aggregate,  this 
expense,  though  by  no  means  inconsiderable,^  was  not  for- 

1  In  1662,  the  yearly  charge  of  the  troops  in  Jamaica  was  £3539.  P.  C. 
Cal.  I,  p.  328. 

2  The  annual  charge  of  these  two  foot-companies  was  £2778  and  in  addi- 
tion £700  was  paid  to  their  conmiander.  Colonel  William  Stapleton,  who 
was  also  the  Governor  of  St.  Kitts  and  the  other  Leeward  Islands.  Cal. 
Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  pp.  57,  140,  141,  519,  524,  525;  Blathwayt, 
Journal  I,  ff.  109,  no;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  627-629. 

3  Cal.  Treas.  Books  1669-1672,  pp.  466,  475,  640,  657,  662,  708;  ihid. 
i672-i675,p.  113;  ibid.  i676-i679,pp.3i3,42S,652, 1183.    Sttpost,^.  119. 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  130,  131. 

'  For  different  reasons  a  small  force  was  also  posted  in  Boston  during 
the  government  of  Andros. 

*  COLONIAL  MILITARY  ESTABLISHMENT  IN   1 679 

Leeward  Islands :  two  companies £2778 

Jamaica:  major-general  £  300 

maintenance  of  forts  £  600 

two  companies  £3327       £4227 

New  York :  allowance  for  forts  and  garrisons       £1000 

Virginia:  major-general  £  300 

maintenance  of  forts  £  600 

two  companies  and  sundries  £3911       £4811 

£12,816 


i 


'  I 


ii6 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


nil 


midable,  and  in  addition  it  was  in  part  defrayed  by  revenue 
derived  directly  from  the  colonies,^  but  it  was  met  grudgingly 
and  borne  with  exceedingly  bad  grace  by  the  English  govern- 
ment, which  was  always  hovering  on  the  verge  of  insolvency. 
The  pay  of  the  soldiers  was  chronically  in  arreaitf^'and 
in  general,  but  more  specifically  in  St.  Kitts,  the  colonial 
garrisons  were  neglected  by  the  home  authorities.  The 
treatment  of  the  soldiers  in  St.  Kitts  was  inexcusably  out- 
rageous. In  1675,  it  was  reported  that  the  two  companies  in 
this  colony  were  in  very  bad  shape,  being  incomplete  as  to 
numbers  and  not  having  received  any  pay  for  three  years, 
"so  that  they  are  naked  and  have  onely  Subsisted  by  the 
Charity  of  the  Planters,  and  the  care  of  their  Colonell,'' 
while  the  French  forces  on  the  island  were  well  paid  and 
clothed.2  The  Privy  Council  ordered  this  rectified,  but 
within  a  few  years  the  same  conditions  again  existed.^ 
In  1 68 1,  Colonel  William  Stapleton  complained  that  the 
pay  of  his  soldiers  was  three  years  in  arrear,  and  that,  as 
his  credit  was  exhausted,  he  could  no  longer  support  them. 
This  gallant  soldier  added  that  it  would  be  more  pleasing 
to  him  to  disband  them,  than  to  see  EngHsh  soldiers  starving 
and  naked,  while  those  of  the  French  on  the  other  side  of  the 
frontier  were  amply  fed  and  well  accoutred.^  When,  in  1687, 

P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  XV,  ff.  90,  150;  C.  O.  1/43,  70;  C.  O.  324/4, 
ff.  63  et  seq. ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  837,  846-848 ;  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  10,119, 
f.  52;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  382,  383. 

^  See  post,  p.  119. 

^  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  627-629. 

'  Cf.  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  244,  245. 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  95,  96.    Cf.  p.  140. 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


117 


the  new  Governor,  Sir  Nathaniel  Johnson,  arrived,  he  was 
shocked  at  the  condition  of  the  garrison.  A  number  of  the 
soldiers  were  too  old  for  service ;  in  general,  their  arms  were 
in  bad  order,  their  clothes  were  miserable,  and  their  pay  was 
four  years  in  arrear.^ 

It  was  the  poHcy  of  the  English  government  to  shift  the 
expense  of  these  garrisons  to  the  colonies,  as  soon  as  their 
finances  were  in  such  shape  that  they  could  bear  it.  When 
Virginia  had  recovered  from  Bacon's  rebellion,  most  of  the 
EngUsh  troops  sent  to  suppress  this  disturbance  were  with- 
drawn, but  a  small  force  was  retained  in  the  colony.  As  in 
St.  Kitts,  the  pay  of  these  soldiers  was  soon  in  arrear,^  and 
in  1 68 1  it  was  proposed  to  disband  them.  The  Governor, 
Lord  Culpeper,  opposed  this  suggestion,  pointing  out  that 
the  West  Indies  did  not  need  garrisons,  as  they  had  little  to 
fear  while  England  was  master  at  sea,  but  that  in  Virginia 
not  only  were  the  Indians  a  constant  source  of  danger,  but 
the  unsettled  state  of  the  neighboring  colonies,  Maryland 
and  North  Carolina,  made  it  necessary  to  retain  the  force 
tHere.3 

Virginia  was  at  this  time  facing  an  economic  crisis  due 
to  the  abnormally  low  price  of  tobacco  resulting  from  over- 
production.'*   In  view  of  the  ensuing  imrest,  which  it  was 

« 

^  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  414. 

2  Va.  Mag.  XIV,  pp.  359-361 ;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  127,  128. 

'  On  this  occasion,  he  stated  that  'the  north  part  of  Carolina  has  always 
been  dangerous  to  Virginia,  being  the  resort  of  the  scum  and  refuse  of  America, 
and  as  yet  ahnost  without  the  face  of  Government.'  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp. 
130,  131. 

*  Ibid. 


I 

I 


m 


ii8 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


feared  might  culminate  in  an  uprising,  it  was  urged  also 
by  others,  in  addition  to  Lord  Culpeper,  that  the  garrison 
should  be  retained.^  The  Lords  of  Trade  were  convinced  by 
these  arguments,  but  their  recommendation  for  the  retention 
of  the  two  foot-companies  was  overruled  by  the  Privy 
Council,  which  ordered  that  their  pay  cease  from  Christmas 
of  1 68 1  on,  and  that  they  be  disbanded  imless  Virginia 
were  willing  to  assume  this  charge.^  As  the  colony  decided 
that,  *in  its  present  necessitous  state,'  this  outlay  would 
be  too  heavy,  the  troops  were  finally  disbanded  in  the  late 
spring  of  1862.^ 

In  1680,  it  was  also  determined  to  withdraw  the  garrison 
that  had  been  in  Jamaica  ever  since  Cromwell's  conquest, 
as  it  was  thought  that  the  colony  was  fully  able  to  bear 
this  burden."*  When  the  news  of  this  contemplated  step 
reached  Jamaica,  Sir  Henry  Morgan,  then  in  charge  of  the 
colony,  wrote  to  Secretary  Jenkins  that  the  two  companies 
were  absolutely  essential  and  were  daily  used  in  capturing 
fugitive  and  rebeUious  slaves  and  in  reducing  pirates.^  The 
government,  however,  adhered  to  its  decision  and  the  troops 
were  disbanded.^ 

Thus,  from  1682  on,  the  only  permanent  garrisons  in  the 


!l! 


^  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  134. 
2  Ibid.  pp.  135,  142. 

*  Ibid.  pp.  175,  228,  229,  237,  238,  240,  241,  245.  In  1683,  when  this 
question  came  up  again,  the  Lords  of  Trade  decided  that  no  garrison  should 
be  kept  in  Virginia  unless  without  expense  to  the  King.    Ibid.  p.  506. 

*  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  624. 

®  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP*  102,  103. 

*  Ibid.  p.  205. 


m 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


119 


colonies,  apart  from  the  troops  sent  over  with  Andros  in 
order  to  facilitate  the  poHtical  reorganization  of  New  Eng- 
land, were  those  in  St.  Kitts  and  in  New  York.  These  were 
retained  on  account  of  the  dangerous  proximity  of  the  French. 
The  former  were  paid  by  the  EngHsh  Exchequer,  but  out  of 
funds  derived  from  the  four  and  a  half  per  cent  export  duties 
in  the  Caribbee  Islands.^  To  the  cost  of  the  latter  £1000 
was  contributed  by  the  EngHsh  Treasury,^  but  when  the 
northern  colonies  were  consoHdated  imder  Andros,  it  was  the 
intention  that  this  charge  should  be  paid  out  of  the  revenue 
arising  in  "the  Dominion  of  New  England."  ^  From  this 
time  on,  England  resolutely  refused  to  support  garrisons  in 
such  of  the  colonies  as  could  themselves  stand  this  expense. 
It  was  only  imder  exceptional  circumstances  and  imder  the 
stress  of  absolute  necessity,  that  any  English  forces  what- 
soever were  permanently  maintained  in  America.  This 
remained  the  practice  until  1763,  when  conditions  had  so 
fundamentally  altered  that  the  precedent  established  under 
the  Restoration  had  to  be  abandoned.  The  attempt  of  the 
EngUsh  government  at  that  time  to  secure  from  the  colonies  a 
part  of  the  funds  needed  to  maintain  the  large  force  required 
in  America  precipitated  the  disruption  of  the  old  Empu-e. 
In  addition  to  supporting  these  temporary  and  permanent 
garrisons,  the  Restoration  government,  when  sufficiently 
urged  by  the  importunities  of  the  colonies,  sent  them  supplies 

1  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  15,896,  ff.  62,  66. 

^  Of  this  annual  allowance,  £6750  was  apparently  still  unpaid  at  the 
time  of  the  accession  of  James  II.    Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  15,896,  f.  54* 
*  C.  O.  5/904,  ff.  409,  410. 


i|i 


ill 


1 20  THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 

of  warlike  stores  ^  —  arms,  cannon,  powder,  shot,  and  what- 
ever else  was  needed  in  the  fortifications  or  by  the  local 
miUtia.2  In  some  instances  also,  especially  in  Jamaica, 
England  spent  considerable  sums  on  the  colonial  forti- 
fications,^  and  in  general  supervised  their  location  and  con- 
struction in  the  royal  provinces.  In  one  instance,  at  least, 
in  the  location  of  the  fort  in  Virginia  during  the  second  of 
England's  Dutch  wars,  colonial  knowledge  of  the  facts  was 
with  grievous  consequences  overridden  at  Whitehall.'* 

In  addition  to  the  duty  of  protecting  the  colonies  against 
organized  foes,  England  was  also  obHged  to  poHce  the  high- 

1  In  1686,  the  newly  appointed  Governor  of  Jamaica,  the  Duke  of  Albe- 
marle, said  that  this  charge  had  always  been  borne  by  the  King.  C.  C. 
1685-1688,  p.  202. 

2  An  Account  of  all  the  Ordnance,  etc.,  dehvered  to  the  Colonies  since  1660, 
dated  Office  of  the  Ordnance,  May  22,  1677. 

Bahamas,  1672 £       oc 

Barbados,  1664/8 35  - 

Bermudas,  1666/73 2';<; 

Carolina,  1664/71 ^  -^ 

New  England,  1664, 2438 

Hudson  Bay,  1670 27 

Jamaica,  1660/76 13^^33 

Leeward  Islands,  1665/72  .    . ,.5, 

Virginia,  1665/76 ^5^6 

New  York,  1666/74 2159 

Africa,  1660/1671 2010 

£44,237 
C.  O.  1/40,  71.     DuriAg  the  foUowing  eight  years  the  value  of  such 

suppKes  sent  to  the  colonies  was  £4780.     C.  O.  324/4,   ff.  1 17-120. 

'  On  Jamaica,  see  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  299-303,  307,  324-327,  375-    In 

1679,  Charles  II  gave  Stapleton  £1500  for  fortifying  the  Leeward  Islands. 

Blathwayt,  Journal  I,  ff.  109,  no. 

^  Osgood,  American  Colonies  III,  pp.  254-258. 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


121 


ways  of  commerce  then  infested  with  pirates  of  diverse 
stripes  and  nationahties.     Of  these  numerous  scourges  of  ' 
peaceful  traders,  the  two  most  important  groups  were  the 
Barbary  corsairs  and  the  West  Indian  buccaneers.^    The 
Caribbean   swarmed  both  with  pirates   and  with  nearly 
equally  lawless  privateers,  who,  on  the  strength  of  com- 
missions   from    the    local    authorities,  —  French,   Dutch, 
Spanish,  and  English,  —  preyed  to  some  extent  indiscrimi- 
nately on  commerce.    But  Spain  suffered  most  severely 
from  their  activities.    Up  to  1670,  when  was  concluded 
the  war  with  Spain  begun  by  Cromwell,  England  used  these 
buccaneers  freely  in  attacks  upon  the  Spanish  colonies  and 
their  commerce.    But  after  that  date,  England  consistently 
exerted  herself  to  suppress  these  privateers,  a  number  of 
whom    turned    pirates.     Considerable    difficulty    was    en- 
countered, for  the  dragon's  teeth  sown  by  England  herself 
in  the  decade  from  1660  to  1670  had  yielded  their  inevitable 
crop  of  desperate  and  lawless  freebooters.     In  order  to 
subdue  them,  vessels  of  the  navy  had  to  be  permanently 
established  in  the  West  Indies,  and  in  1687  a  special  squad- 
ron under  Sir  Robert  Holmes  was  sent  with  this  object  to 
the  Caribbean.^     As  a  result  of  the  continual  activity  of 
these  frigates,  piracy  in  these  waters,  if  not  fully  suppressed, 
was  at  least  so  disciplined  that  the  trade  thence  with  Europe 
and  with  the  continental  colonies  could  be  carried  on  in 
comparative  safety. 

1  See  post,  Chapter  VIL 

^  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  421,  467,  488 ;    British  Royal  Proclamations, 
1603-1783  (Am.  Antiqu.  Soc,  191 1),  pp.  140-142. 


11'  I 


A 


l!i 


'II ; 


'i 

I 

i 

J 

122 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


The  military  operations  carried  on  against  the  other 
pirate  group,  the  Barbary  corsairs,  were  on  a  much  more 
extensive  scale,^  and  were  of  equal,  if  not  greater,  value  to 
the  colonies,  especially  to  those  on  the  continent  that  were 
engaged  in  active  trade  to  the  Mediterranean.  After  the 
expulsion  of  the  Moors  from  Spain  in  1492,  there  followed 
over  three  centuries  of  desultory  naval  fighting  between  the 
forces  of  the  Cross  and  the  Crescent.^  It  was  one  phase 
of  the  perennial  conflict  between  the  irreconcilable  East 
and  West,  during  which  those  who  were  so  unfortunate  as 
to  be  captured  by  their  foes  were  treated  with  revolting 
cruelty.  The  Mohammedan  was  forced  to  ply  the  oars  in 
the  galleys  of  the  Mediterranean  nations,  the  Christian  be- 
came a  slave  in  the  household  or  shop  of  an  unsympathetic 
jnaster  in  Tripoli  or  Algiers.^ 

The  extent  and  destructive  nature  of  the  operations  of 
these  corsairs  of  Algiers,  Tunis,  and  Tripoli  rendered  navi- 
gation in  European  waters  very  hazardous.  The  Medi- 
terranean, on  which  was  their  base  of  operations,  was  natu- 
rally most  affected,  but  their  activity  extended  even  to  the 
EngHsh  Channel.  In  1677,  a  direct  voyage  from  Ireland 
to  France  was  on  their  accoimt  deemed  one  of  considerable 

*  See  J.  S.  Corbett,  England  in  the  Mediterranean. 

*  See  for  the  early  stages  of  this  conflict  E.  H.  Currey,  Sea  Wolves  of  the 
Mediterranean. 

3  The  Carolina  proprietor,  Seth  Sothell,  who  was  taken  prisoner  in  1679, 
complained  that  he  was  forced  by  his  captors  to  "carry  Morter,  Brick  and 
stone  for  the  Masons  with  a  heavy  Chaine  of  Nine  links,  each  linke  two 
inches  and  halfe  thick  upon  his  legg  besides  Bolt  and  Shackle."  P.  C. 
Cal.  II,  p.  3. 


i«» 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


123 


hazard.^  A  petition  of  1679  from  the  wives  and  relatives 
of  one  hundred  and  sixty-one  English  captives  in  Algiers 
stated  that  some  of  them  had  been  "taken  in  thirteen 
Virginia  ships,  even  at  the  mouth  of  the  Channel."  ^  In 
the  same  year,  Seth  SotheU,  one  of  the  Carolina  proprietors, 
when  on  his  way  to  assume  the  government  of  their  northern 
settlement,  was  taken  prisoner  by  the  Algerines.^  In  1680, 
Governor  Bradstreet  of  Massachusetts  gave  as  one  of  the 
reasons  for  the  colony's  delay  in  sending  to  England  ac- 
credited representatives,  that  Hhe  great  hazard  of  the  seas 
creates  a  backwardness  in  persons  most  suitable  to  be 
employed  as  agents,  for  we  have  already  lost  five  or  six 
of  our  vessels  by  Turkish  pirates,  and  many  of  our  in- 
habitants continue  in  miserable  captivity  among  them.'  * 
In  this  very  year,  for  fear  of  these  pirates,  the  captains 
of  most  of  the  sugar  ships  in  Barbados  resolved  to  sail 

1  June  16,  1677,  Sir  Robert  Southwell  wrote  to  Lady  Perceval :  "Touch- 
ing your  voyage  into  France,  you  seem  now  to  point  at  going  directly  (from 
Ireland),  but  truly  considering  the  rovers  that  are  now  at  sea,  and  even  the 
Algerines  that  He  off  the  Lands  End,  who  are  neither  of  them  very  civil, 
though  we  be  in  friendship  withal,  I  cannot  approve  of  your  going  from 
Ireland  into  France  by  sea,  and  therefore  you  must  needs  choose  this  way 
(by  England),  where  the  road  is  plain."  MSS.  of  Earl  of  Egmont  (H.M.C. 
1909)  II,  p.  67. 

2  House  of  Lords  MSS.  1678-1688  (H.M.C.  1887),  p.  137. 

'  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  326;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  838.  See  also  Playfair,  The 
Scourge  of  Christendom,  p.  131.  In  1680,  WiUiam  Harris,  a  prominent 
New  Englander,  was  also  taken  prisoner  by  the  Algerines.  C.  C.  1677- 
1680,  pp.  589,  590. 

^  lUd.  p.  549.  Among  the  obstructions  to  the  colony's  trade  enumer- 
ated by  Bradstreet  in  1680  was  mentioned  the  activity  of  these  Algerines. 
C.  0.  1/44,  61  i. 


I 


124 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


for  England  by  the  circuitous  route  north  of  Ireland  and 
Scotland.^ 

These  scattered,  but  significant,  facts  show  plainly  how 
great  was  the  danger  from  these  corsairs,  even  though  Eng- 
land was  energetically  endeavoring  to  suppress  their  dep- 
redations and  had,  in  fact,  concluded  a  series  of  treaties 
promising  immunity  to  EngUsh  ships.^  In  1662,  was  con- 
cluded a  treaty  with  Algiers,  which  provided  that  EngHsh 
ships,  either  furnished  with  admiralty  passes  or  the  major 
part  of  whose  crew  was  EngHsh,  should  not  be  molested. 
The  Algerines  did  not,  however,  abide  by  their  treaty  obli- 
gations, and  for  the  next  twenty-five  years  periodic  viola- 
tions thereof  were  followed  by  fresh  treaties  of  substantially 
the  same  tenor,  each  one  secured  by  armed  force.  Such 
treaties  and  subsidiary  agreements  were  secured  from  Algiers 
in  1664,  1668,  1669,  1671,  1682,  1683,  and  1686.  Sub- 
stantially the  same  were  England's  relations  with  the  other 
Barbary  states.^ 

In  addition  to  the  naval  force  required  virtually  perma- 
nently in  the  Mediterranean  in  order  to  secure  any  respect 
whatsoever  for  these  agreements,  England  during  the  fre- 
quent intervals  of  more  or  less  active  hostihties  had  to  pro- 
tect her  merchant  vessels.  In  1678,  the  Admiralty  was 
instructed  to  send  a  number  of  men-of-war  to  ply  off  the 
mouth  of  the  Channel  in  order  to  protect  the  Virginia 

1  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  532,  533. 

2  England's  relations  with  Algiers  are  described  in  Playfair,  op.  cit.  pp. 
78-152. 

3  Treaties  and  agreements  were  concluded  with  Tunis  in  1662,  and  with 
Tripoli  in  1662  and  1676. 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION  125 

tobacco  ships  from  the  "Pyrats  of  Argier  who  may  probably 
lye  in  waite  for  them."  ^  The  following  year,  on  account  of 
the  "present  Warr  with  the  Turks  and  their  Strength,"  an 
exceptionally  strong  convoy  had  to  be  appointed  for  the 
Newfoundland  fleet  sailing  with  fish  to  the  Mediterranean 

ports.^ 

The  treaties  with  these  states  granted  immunity  to  all 
ships  belonging  to  subjects  of  Charles  II  and  thus  included 
colonial  vessels.  Such  EngUsh  ships  were  to  go  free,  if 
provided  with  an  Admiralty  pass  or  if  the  majority  of  their 
seamen  were  Enghsh  subjects.^  Careful  regulations  were 
prepared  for  the  issue  of  these  passes,^  so  that  they  should 
not  fall  into  the  hands  of  foreigners,  who  would  then  benefit 
by  England's  naval  successes.  At  this  time,  no  rules  were  as 
yet  prepared  for  the  issue  of  Algerine  passes  in  the  colonies,^ 

1  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  809. 

2  Ihid.  pp.  816,  817,  821,  822. 

3  See  §§  ii,  iii,  and  iv  of  treaty  of  167 1  with  Algiers.  The  Tripoli  treaty 
of  1676  contained  the  same  clauses.  Public  Record  Office,  State  Papers 
Foreign,  Treaties,  Barbary  States  9,  10. 

*  Col.  Entry  Book  96,  ff.  26-29,  54;  P.  C.  Register  Charles  H,  XII,  fif. 
157-159;  British  Royal  Proclamations,  1603-1783  (Am.  Antiqu.  Soc.  1911), 
pp.  129,  130. 

^  Cal.  Dom.  1676-1677,  p.  521.  In  1678,  on  the  petition  of  a  London 
merchant  owning  a  New  England  built  ship  then  at  Boston,  Massachu- 
setts, to  the  effect  that  he  "dares  not  stirre  without  his  Majestyes  pass, 
to  protect  her  against  the  Turkes,"  the  Privy  Council  ordered  the  Admiralty 
to  issue  the  requested  pass,  although  the  case  was  one  not  provided  for  under 
the  rules.  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  796.  In  1683,  Governor  Cranfield  of  New 
Hampshire  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  for  authority  to  issue  Algerine 
passes.  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  368-369.  In  the  same  year,  Randolph  wrote 
to  Blathwayt  that  it  was  "desired  by  some  Merc*-^  in  Boston  that  they 
might  haue  the  benefitt  of  Algeere  Passes  for  such  of  their  ships  as  carry 


126 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


'^  1 


THE  LAWS  OF  TRADE  AND  NAVIGATION 


■     I 


P$ 


liii 


t!^ 


because  in  general  there  was  no  real  necessity  for  such  a 
provision,  and  more  specifically  in  so  far  as  New  England 
was  concerned,  because  of  the  slight  control  England  was 
able  to  exercise  over  the  colonies  there.^  But  under  the 
other  clauses  of  the  treaties  with  these  powers,  colonial 
vessels  were  exempted  from  capture  and  molestation,  pro- 
vided the  majority  of  their  crews  were  English.^ 

The  comparative  immunity  from  these  corsairs  secured 
by  England  was  of  great  importance  to  her  commerce  and 
to  that  of  the  colonies.  It  was  only  by  dint  of  repeated 
expeditions  and  hostile  demonstrations  with  bombardments 
of  their  towns  and  naval  engagements,  that  the  Barbary 
states  were  forced  to  treat  the  Enghsh  flag  with  some  sem- 
blance of  respect.  Other  European  nations  did  not  fare 
so  well,  for  unless  absolutely  compelled  by  overwhelming 
force,  these  North  African  powers  would  not  make  peace 
with  all  Christendom  and  thus  lose  a  chief  source  of  their 
revenues.^    Thanks  to  its  poHtical  connection  with  England, 

fish  from  us  to  the  Streights"  and  requested  that  a  number  of  blank  passes 
be  sent  to  New  England.     Goodrick,  Randolph  VI,  p.  147. 

1  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  15,  16;  Cal.  Dom.  1676-1677,  p.  521.  See  post, 
Chapter  XL 

2  There  was,  however,  a  distinct  advantage  in  having  a  pass,  because  then 
the  vessel  was  not  subjected  to  examination  by  the  corsairs.  Moreover,  at 
one  time  the  Turks  seized  all  ships  not  provided  with  passes  on  the  strength 
of  the  English  proclamation  of  1675,  which  apparently  required  aU  EngUsh 
vessels  to  secure  these  documents.     Cal.  Dom.  1677-1678,  pp.  470-472. 

3  "  The  Algerines  were  shy  of  contracting  too  many  alliances,  lest  there 
should  be  no  nation  to  prey  upon,  and  we  read  of  a  solemn  debate  in  the 
Divan  to  decide  which  nation  should  be  broken  with,  inasmuch  as  the  slave 
masters  were  becoming  bankrupt  from  the  pacific  relations  of  the  State." 
Stanley  Lane-Poole,  the  Story  of  the  Barbary  Corsairs,  p.  270. 


127 


Massachusetts  was  able  to  ship  with  comparative  safety 
the  products  of  its  fishery  —  the  colony's  basic  industry  — 
to  the  Mediterranean  markets.  As  a  result  of  these  treaties 
also,  the  crops  of  the  tobacco  and  sugar  planters  could  be 
brought  in  relative  security  to  Europe. 

In  the  eyes  of  the  statesmen  and  publicists  of  the  day, 
England  was  fully  justified  in  restricting  colonial  commerce 
in  return  for  the  burden  assumed  in  defending  and  pohcing 
the  Empire.  If  there  existed  any  doubts  on  this  point, 
they  were  more  than  quieted  by  the  preferential  treatment 
accorded  to  colonial  products  in  the  English  market.  While 
the  enumerated  articles  could  not  be  shipped  to  any  place 
in  Europe  but  England,  in  return  competing  commodities 
of  foreign  nations  we're  virtually  excluded  from  this  market. 
The  reciprocal  nature  of  the  old  colonial  system  is  manifest 
not  only  in  the  scheme  of  imperial  defence,  but  to  an  even 
more  marked  degree  in  the  preferential  features  of  England's 
fiscal  system. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES 

The  tarifif  of  1660  —  Its  preferential  treatment  of  English  colonial  products 
—  The  prohibition  to  plant  tobacco  in  England  and  the  efforts  required 
to  enforce  it  —  The  attempt  in  1671  to  increase  the  sugar  and  tobacco 
duties  —  The  impost  of  1685  and  colonial  opposition  to  it  —  The  Crown's 
dues  in  the  colonies  —  The  Restoration  settlement  in  the  Caribbee 
Islands  —  The  four  and  a  half  per  cent  revenue  and  the  opposition  of 
Barbados  to  it  —  The  Virginia  quit-rents  —  The  estabUshment  of  a 
permanent  revenue  in  Virginia  under  the  control  and  at  the  disposal  of 
the  Crown,  and  the  attempt  to  do  so  in  Jamaica  —  The  appointment 
of  Blathwayt  as  Auditor-General  of  the  colonial  revenues. 

From  the  very  outset  of  the  colonial  movement  it  was 

clearly  understood  that  the  proposed  settlements  in  America 

were  to  be  outside  the  English  fiscal  barriers,  and  that 

merchandise  exported  to  the  colonies  or  imported  from  them 

should  pay  the  English  customs  duties.     If  the  colonial 

trade  had  been  left  completely  uncontrolled,  the  colonies 

would  still  necessarily  have  been  more  or  less  afifected  by 

these  duties,  but  the  English  fiscal  regulations  would  not 

have  been  integrally  connected  with  the  colonial    system 

proper.    The  enumeration  clauses  and  the  Staple  Act  of 

1663,  however,  perforce  subjected  a  number  of  colonial 

products,  and  also  many  articles  consumed  in  the  colonies, 

to  the  English  customs.    These  duties  in  many  ways  affected 

the  economic  development  of  the  colonies,  and  formed  an 

128 


11: 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES     129 

important  part  of  the  old  colonial  system.  Without  some 
knowledge  of  their  nature,  scope,  and  purpose,  it  is  impossible 
fully  to  understand  the  economics  or  the  poHtics  of  the  old 
Empire. 

In  1 660,  the  most  important  of  the  preceding  laws  imposing 
taxes  on  imports  and  exports  were  consolidated  in  one 
statute,  generally  termed  the  "Old  Subsidy."^  In  this 
Act,  Parliament  granted  to  Charles  II  for  life  a  subsidy 
of  tonnage  and  poimdage.  The  former  was  a  specific  duty 
of  varying  amounts  on  wines  imported;  the  poundage 
was  equivalent  to  5  per  cent  on  all  imports  and  exports  ^ 
according  to  their  fixed  value  as  given  in  the  "Book  of 
Rates,"  which  formed  an  integral  part  of  the  statute.^  As 
the  goods  were  at  the  time  rather  arbitrarily  appraised, 

*  12  Ch.  II,  c.  4. 

*  According  to  the  statute,  these  duties  were  imposed  on  imports  and 
exports  both  of  the  realm  and  its  dominions,  and  hence  their  collection  in 
the  colonies  would  have  been  legal.  Although  this  fact  was  not  lost  sight 
of,  no  general  attempt  was  made  to  enforce  the  law.  In  one  exceptional 
instance,  however,  these  duties  were  ordered  collected.  In  1663,  Charles  II 
granted  permission  to  Spanish  ships  to  trade  to  the  English  West  Indies 
for  negroes,  provided :  i,  that  whatever  goods  were  imported  or  exported 
in  these  ships  should  pay  in  the  colonies  "the  same  duties  of  Tonnage  and 
Poundage  as  is  now  established  by  Law  in  this  Our  Kingdome  of  England" ; 
2,  that  on  every  negro  thus  exported,  except  such  as  had  been  contracted 
for  in  England  by  the  Royal  African  Company,  there  should  be  paid  a 
duty  of  ten  pieces  of  eight.  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  III,  ff.  336-338 ; 
P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  345-349.  Such  export  duties  on  negroes  were  frequently 
collected,  but  I  have  seen  no  evidence  of  the  collection  of  the  tonnage 
and  poundage. 

'  By  mistaking  these  valuations  for  the  actual  duties  imposed.  Professor 
Channing  grossly  misjudges  the  effect  of  the  tobacco  duties  on  Virginia. 
Edward  Channing,  A  History  of  the  United  States  II,  p.  12. 


I30 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


iji 


and  as,  in  addition,  it  was  not  attempted  subsequently  to 
make  these  valuations  correspond  with  the  ensuing  radical 
market  fluctuations,  these  duties  were  by  no  means  even 
approximately  equivalent  to  5  per  cent.    Thus,  whUe  the 
rating  of  colonial  raw  sugar  was  at  the  time  somewhat 
under  its  duty-paid  market  value  in  England,  in  the  next 
decade  it  was  considerably  in  excess  thereof.^    Moreover, 
as  far  as  colonial  tobacco  was  concerned,  there  was  ap- 
parently no  attempt  whatsoever  at  a  correct  appraisal. 
Colonial  tobacco  was  valued  at  twenty  pence  a  pound, 
when  it  could  be  freely  bought  in  Virginia  and  Maryland 
for  from  one-penny  to  twopence,  and  sold  in  England,  after 
paying  duties,  freight,  and  other  charges,  for  from  four  to 
five  pence.2    Thus,  whHe  nominaUy  a  system  of  ad  valorem 
rates,  actually  the  tariff  was  one  of  specific  duties. 

In  general,  the  Old  Subsidy  imposed  this  5  per  cent  tax 
on  all  English  produce  and  manufactures  exported  to  the 
colonies  as  weU  as  elsewhere.  These  export  duties  were, 
however,  of  but  slight  importance  in  imperial  history.  In 
a  report  on  colonial  trade  prepared  in  1678  for  the  Lords  of 
Trade,  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  stated  that  these 
duties  amounted  to  but  little,   "the  Comodities  of  this 

1  Colonial  raw  sugar  was  rated  at  305.  the  cwt.,  refined  at  £5.  Prior  to 
1667,  before  the  great  increase  in  the  sugar  output  of  the  French  colonies 
began  to  make  itself  seriously  felt,  the  prices  in  England  were  respectively 
405.  and  £5.  In  1670  and  the  foUowing  years,  they  were  roughly  22s.  to 
23^.,  and  45^.  to  705.  In  Barbados,  the  price  of  raw  sugar  was  in  1670 
about  125,  and  the  Enghsh  duty  of  is.  6d.  was  thus  at  that  time  equivalent 
to  i2i  per  cent  on  the  colonial  value.  C.  O.  1/26,  57;  C.  0.  31/2  ff  54 
et  seq. ;   Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  ff-  639-641. 

*Brit.  Mus.,  Harleian  MSS.  1238,  ff.  20-22. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL   SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES     131 

Kingdome  being  but  low  rated  in  the  Book  of  Rates."  ^ 
Moreover,  apart  from  their  slight  extent,  the  incidence  of 
these  taxes  varied  with  the  specific  circumstances  of  each 
case.  At  this  time  England  was  still  predominantly  an 
agricultural  country  and  normally  exported  foodstuffs  to 
the  colonies.  Such  commodities  had  to  pay  these  export 
duties,  which  naturally  to  some  extent  lessened  England's 
ability  to  compete  with  the  provision  colonies  in  supplying 
the  West  Indies.  Apart  from  all  other  circumstances  of 
the  case,  such  taxes  in  themselves  were  to  this  extent  of 
benefit  to  the  northern  continental  colonies.^  In  such  in- 
stances these  export  duties  were,  in  general,  almost  entirely 
paid  by  the  English  farmer.^  SimHarly  in  other  cases,  in 
which  colonial  and  English  goods  came  into  competition  — 

^  C.  O.  1/42,  60.  In  1671,  the  customs  officials  had  estimated  these  ex- 
port duties  at  about  £30,000.  House  of  Lords  MSS.,  H.M.C.  IX,  Part  II, 
p.  10**.  This  estimate  cannot,  however,  be  reconciled  with  the  extant 
accounts  of  exports  to  the  colonies. 

^  Exactly  opposite  in  effect  would  be  the  payment  of  bounties  on  the 
exportation  of  corn  from  England.  Prior  to  1689,  such  bounties  were  in 
force  only  during  the  years  1673  to  1678.  N.  S.  B.  Gras,  The  Corn  Bomity 
Expenment  of  Charles  II,  in  Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics  XXIV  pp 

Wheat,  rye,  peas,  beans,  barley,  malt,  oats,  beef,  pork,  bacon,  butter 
Cheese,  and  candles  could  be  exported  only  when  under  certain  prices,  and 
then  only  on  payment  of  the  export  duties.  12  Ch.  II,  c.  4,  §  xi  These 
pnces  were  subsequently  changed,  and  ten  years  later  this  price  restriction 
on  exportation  was  removed.  15  Ch.  II,  c.  7,  §  ii ;  22  Ch.  II,  c.  13,  §§  i  iv 
Immediately  after  the  Revolution  of  1688/9,  ParHament  even  gave  bounties 
on  the  exportation  of  these  grains -rye,  malt,  barley,  and  wheat,     i  W 

.sess.  I,  c.   12.     -For  nearly  a  century  England  was  made  by  the 
^orn  Laws  a  corn-exporting  country."    R.  E.  Prothero,  in  Social  England  IV 

p.  444,  o  > 


—^ 


132 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


I 

i  i 


I 

; 

i 


such  as  hats,  shoes,  and  clothing  —  these  export  duties 
could  not  in  their  entirety  be  shifted  to  the  colonial  con- 
sumer. Whenever  there  was  direct  or  indirect  competition 
between  the  products  of  the  metropolis  and  the  colony, 
this  feature  of  the  English  fiscal  system  hampered  English 
industry  and  benefited  that  of  the  colonies.  But  in  other 
instances,  where  there  was  no  such  competition,  these 
export  duties  unquestionably  raised  the  price  at  which 
the  commodities  were  sold  in  the  colonies.^ 

Far  more  important  to  the  colonies  than  these  export 
duties  was  the  treatment  accorded  to  their  imports  into 
England.  In  connection  with  the  export  duties  only  some 
slight  favors  were  conceded  to  the  colonies,^  but  the  import 

*  Of  interest  and  importance  to  the  colonies  was  the  removal  of  some  of 
the  previous  prohibitions  to  export  certain  commodities,  such  as  iron,  arms, 
saddles,  geldings,  oxen,  etc.  12  Ch.  II,  c.  4,  §  x.  These  prohibitions  dated 
back  to  mediaeval  times  and  had  as  a  rule  been  waived  in  the  colonial 
charters  of  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century.  Beer,  Origins,  pp. 
105,  106.  The  exportation  of  some  articles,  such  as  tin  and  tobacco-pipe 
clay,  still  continued  to  be  forbidden.  Cal.  Treas.  Book,  1660-1667,  p.  155; 
Carkesse,  The  Act  of  Tonnage  and  Poundage  (London,  1726),  pp.  765  et  seq. 

2  By  the  Act  of  1660  the  export  duties  on  geldings  and  nags  shipped  to 
the  colonies  were  only  half  the  regular  duties.  These  duties  were,  however, 
very  high,  and  in  1663  the  House  of  Conmions  recommended  the  Crown  to 
give  leave  to  accommodate  the  colonies  with  such  horses  as  they  might  re- 
quire. Accordingly,  Charles  II  issued  a  proclamation  giving  "free  Liberty 
for  transportation  of  Horses  into  any  of  his  Majesties  Plantations  "  with- 
out payment  of  duties,  on  Hcense  being  first  obtained.  Com.  Journal  VIII, 
PP-  532,  533  ;  P-  C.  Register,  Charles  II,  III,  ff.  491,  495  ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp. 
367,  368.  For  these  licenses  and  the  subsequent  history  of  this  subject,  see 
P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  346,  437,  451,  489,  531 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  32,  41,  44; 
22  Ch.  II,  c.  13,  §  viii.  An  Act  of  1663  lowered  the  duties  on  such  coals  as 
should  be  exported  to  the  colonies.  In  1669,  on  the  ground  that  Barbados 
was  in  want  of  wood  to  boil  its  sugars  and  hence  needed  Newcastle  or  Welsh 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND   IMPERIAL  FINANCES    133 

duties  were  so  adjusted  as  to  give  many  colonial  products 
marked  advantages  over  those  of  foreign  nations.  The 
tariff  of  1660  rated  English  colonial  ginger,  indigo,  cotton, 
sugar,  and  tobacco  much  lower  than  the  foreign  competing 
products.  Ginger  of  the  East  Indies  was  valued  at  three 
shillings  a  pound,  that  of  the  West  Indies  at  one  shilling 
fourpence,  and  that  of  the  EngHsh  colonies  at  only  a  trifle 
over  twopence.^  Foreign  indigo  was  valued  at  three  shillings 
fourpence  a  poimd,  as  opposed  to  one  shilling  for  the  English 
product.  Foreign  cotton  paid  fourpence  a  pound,  while  that 
of  the  English  plantations  was  free.     Spanish  and  other 

coal,  it  was  suggested  that  the  English  export  duties  on  coal  be  discontinued, 
and  also  those  on  all  other  shipments  to  Barbados.    The  law  was,  however, 
not  changed.     15  Ch.  II,  c.  7;    9  Anne,  c.  6;    Carkesse,  op.  cit.  p.  cxiii; 
Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  12,  f.  383;   C.  C.  1699,  pp.  590,  591. 
Arms  were  occasionally  allowed  to  be  shipped  to  the  colonies  free  of  duties. 
Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  5,  f.  25;   9,  f.  91.    For  an  instance  of 
the  relaxation  of  the  law  in  favor  of  some  malt  intended  for  shipment  to 
Virginia,  see  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1660-1667,  pp.  159,  160,  289.     The  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  was  also  favored  by  the  government.     In  i68r,  the 
Company  was  granted  permission  to  export  "their  Clothes,   Provisions, 
Victuals  Arms  Ammunition  Implements  &  Materials  necessary  for  the 
Maintaining  &  defence  of  their  forts.  Colonies  and  factorys "  customs  free, 
as  did  the  African  and  East  India  Companies.    Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters, 
Customs  5,  ff.  317-318.    C/.  f.  21.    A  number  of  the  colonial  governors, 
such  as  Lord  Culpeper,  Sir  Richard  Button,  and  the  Duke  of  Albermarle, 
when  departing  for  their  posts,  were  allowed  to  ship  their  supplies  and 
those  of  their  retinues  free  of  duty.    Ihid.  5,  ff.  37,  289;    n,  ff.  42,  43. 
Tools  for  the  use  of  the  planters  in  the  Carolinas  and  Bahamas  could  also 
be  exported  free  of  customs.    No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  pp.  27,  108 ;  Cal.  Treas. 
Books,  1669-1672,  p.  1343. 

*  On  the  duties  on  ginger,  see  Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  8,  f .  4 ; 
P.  C.  Cal.  II,  pp.  191,  192.  This  exceedingly  low  duty  on  English  colonial 
ginger  was  not  in  the  original  law,  but  was  added  later  by  the  Treasury. 


A 


134 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


!|   I 


pr  f 


•i     t 


ill 


ij 


foreign  tobacco  was  charged  with  sixpence  a  pound,  as  against 
only  twopence  collected  from  the  English  colonial  commod- 
ity.^ On  unrefined  EngHsh  sugar  the  duty  was  one  shilling 
sixpence  a  hundredweight,  as  against  four  shillings  on  the 
foreign  product.  On  refined  sugar  the  differential,  while 
marked,  was  considerably  less.  English  refined  paid  ^ve 
shillings  the  hundredweight,  the  foreign  product  seven  shil- 
lings fourpence.^ 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  commodities  to  which  pref- 
erential treatment  was  accorded  were  those  on  the  enumer- 
ated list,  which  came  from  the  West  Indies  and  the  tobacco 
colonies  on  the  continent.  None  of  the  products  of  New 
England  were  either  enumerated  or  given  such  treatment, 
because  they  were  not  wanted  or  because  they  were  so  bulky 
in  nature  that  they  could  not  stand  the  cost  of  carriage 
across  the  Atlantic.  In  this  latter  class  were  naval  stores 
and  lumber,  in  which  case  far  more  heroic  measures  than 
differential  duties  would  have  been  necessary  in  order  to 
make  possible  colonial  exports  to  England.  Nor  could  the 
grain  and  provisions  of  the  northern  colonies  find  a  market 

*  Foreign  tobacco  was  valued  at  105.  a  pound,  on  which  5  per  cent  amounted 
to  6d.  English  colonial  tobacco  was  valued  at  i^.  8d.,  on  which  the  duty 
was  id.,  but  an  additional  duty  of  id.  was  also  charged  thereon. 

2  The  classification  of  the  various  grades  of  sugar  in  the  Act  of  1660  was 
not  clear  or  exhaustive,  which  fact  led  to  some  difficulties.  In  1667,  it 
was  agreed  between  the  Farmers  of  the  Customs  and  the  Barbados  mer- 
chants, that  sugars  of  and  below  the  grade  of  the  finest  Brazilian  muscovado 
should  be  considered  unrefined  and  all  others  white  or  refined.  Cal. 
Treas.  Books,  1667-1668,  pp.  146,  147.  See  also  C.  O.  1/22,  20;  C.  C. 
1661-1668,  no.  1679;  Brit.  Mus.,  Stowe  MSS.  324,  ff.  4  et  seq. ;  Egerton 
MSS.  2395,  ff.  629  et  seq. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES     135 

in  the  mother  cotmtry,  for  England  was  still  able  to  sell 
foodstuffs  in  competition  with  her  colonies  in  neutral 
markets.^  But  even  if  such  importations  into  England  had 
been  feasible,  this  trade  would  not  have  been  countenanced. 
England  was  still  largely  agricultural,  and  the  dominant 
landed  interest  had  inserted  in  the  tariff  of  1660  very 
high  import  duties  on  wheat,  rye,  beans,  barley,  and  malt.^ 
These  duties  were  not  aimed  at  the  colonies,  such  imports 
from  them  being  then  virtually  impossible.  They  were 
followed  by  other  measures,  likewise  not  directed  against 
the  colonies,  but  at  Ireland,  prohibiting  the  importation 
into  England  of  cattle,  sheep,  swine,  beef,  pork,  and 
bacon.^ 

The  preferential  treatment  of  the  enumerated  products 
in  the  tariff  of  1660  was  of  great  advantage  to  the  colonies 

*  EXPORTS   OF  PROVISIONS  FROM  ENGLAND  TO   THE   COLONIES 

I 66 2- I 663  I 668- I 669 

Butter,  firkins  239 470 

Beer,  tuns  234 757 

Beef,  barrels  12 

Candles,  dozens  206 1810 

Cheese,  cwt.  294 226 

Hops,  cwt.  17 

Malt,  quarters  496 

Wheat  meal,  quarters    60 94 

Oatmeal,  bushels  iii 32 

Peas,  quarters  14 

Apples,  bushels  12 

B.  T.  Trade  Papers  4. 

2  See  also  15  Ch.  II,  c.  7,  §  iii ;  22  Ch.  II,  c.  13.    For  details,  see  H.  Saxby, 
British  Customs  (London,  1757),  pp.  111-114. 

'  IS  Ch.  II,  c.  7  ;  18  Ch.  II,  c.  2  ;  20  Ch.  II,  c.  7.    For  details,  see  Murray, 
Commercial  Relations  between  England  and  Ireland,  pp.  24  et  seq. 


•  I 


4i 


Hill 


i 


« 


^f 

#* 


•$ 


:'" 


M 


1 


136 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


interested,  and  gave  their  products  a  virtual  monopoly  of 
the  English  market.  In  the  year  1687-1688,  168,807  pounds 
of  indigo  were  imported  into  London  from  the  English  West 
Indies,  as  contrasted  with  27,038  from  elsewhere.^  In  the 
same  year  only  16,000  pounds  of  Spanish  tobacco  passed 
through  the  London  custom-house,  while  nearly  15,000,000 
pounds  came  from  the  EngHsh  colonies.^  Similarly,  with  the 
exception  of  a  relatively  small  quantity  of  highly  refined 
Brazilian  sugar,  the  English  market  was  virtually  entirely 
supplied  by  the  English  West  Indies.^ 

This  preferential  system,  with  its  ensuing  monopoly,  and 

*  C.  C.  1699,  pp.  606. 

•  TOBACXrO  IMPORTED  INTO  LONDON 


1685-1686 
1686-1687 
1687-1688 


English  Colonial 

14,514,513  lbs. 
14,067,177  lbs. 

14,874,359  lbs. 

Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  1815,  f.  35.  In  1660,  and  presumably  later  as 
well,  some  Spanish  tobacco  was  also  smuggled  into  England.  Com.  Journal 
VIII,  p.  124;  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1660-1667,  pp.  54,  56.  On  the  importa- 
tion of  Spanish  tobacco  in  1661,  see  also  Portland  MSS.  (H.M.C.  1893)  II, 
P-  143- 

3  Bodleian,  Rawlinson  A  478,  f.  63 ;  House  of  Lords  MSS.,  H.M.C.  IX, 
Part  II,  p.  11^.  In  the  eighteenth  century,  foreign  sugars  were  extensively 
shipped  as  English  from  the  continental  colonies  to  England,  thus  evading 
the  higher  duties.  Beer,  British  Colonial  PoHcy,  1 754-1 765,  p.  247.  The 
earUest  case  of  this  nature,  which  I  have  seen,  occurred  shortly  after  the 
Restoration,  when  an  EngUsh  ship  freighted  in  Brazil  three  hundred  chests 
of  sugar,  then  took  in  the  rest  of  her  cargo  at  Barbados,  "and  so  paste  m 
England  for  a  shipe  which  brought  all  her  Loadinge  from  his  Ma"f^  planta- 
tions."   Public  Record  Office,  State  Papers  Foreign,  Portugal  5,  ff.  190,  191. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES     137 

the  enumeration  of  these  products  must  be  considered  to- 
gether. The  advantages  conferred  by  one  were  held  to  coun- 
terbalance the  restrictions  imposed  by  the  other.  They  were 
two  clauses  in  what  had  originally  been  an  actual  bargain 
between  metropoHs  and  colony.  In  1623,  the  Virginia  Com- 
pany and  that  of  the  Bermudas  offered  to  ship  aU  their 
tobacco  to  England,  provided  in  return  they  were  granted 
a  virtual  monopoly  of  the  home  market.^  This  proposition 
had  been  accepted.  As  then,  so  now  in  1660,  the  restriction 
of  colonial  exports  to  England  was  more  or  less  counterbal- 
anced by  the  exceptional  treatment  received  there. 

Except  in  so  far  as  these  import  duties  decreased  con- 
sumption in  England  and  thus  lessened  the  demand  for  the 
colonial  products,  they  were  shifted  to  the  EngUsh  con- 
sumer. But  only  a  part  of  the  enumerated  goods  imported 
into  England  was  consumed  there.  A  considerable  portion 
was  reshipped  to  neutral  markets,  where  they  competed 
with  similar  products  of  the  Spanish,  Portuguese,  Dutch,  and 
French  colonies.  The  duties  on  this  portion  would  un- 
questionably be  borne  by  the  colonial  planter.  Moreover, 
under  the  Staple  Act  of  1663,  foreign  European  goods  could 
be  shipped  to  the  colonies  only  through  England,  where 
they  paid  duties.  Thus  the  effect  of  the  laws  of  trade  and 
navigation  in  combination  with  the  English  fiscal  system  was 
virtually  to  impose  a  direct  tax  on  the  colonial  producer  and 
consumer.  In  these  cases,  however,  a  special  arrangement 
greatly  lessened  the  extent  of  these  duties.  In  general,  on 
all  goods,  whether  colonial  or  foreign,  reshipped  from  Eng- 

^  Beer,  Origins,  p.  132. 


/ 


II 


H' 


\w 


11 


I 


m\ 


138 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


land  within  a  specified  period  of  reasonable  length/  one-half 
of  the  duties  was  refunded.  The  amount  accruing  to  the 
Exchequer  was  thus  two  and  a  half  per  cent  of  the  value  of 
the  commodities  as  stated  in  the  Book  of  Rates.  In  the 
case  of  colonial  tobacco  —  the  most  important  item  —  not 
only  was  half  of  the  subsidy  repaid,  but  also  the  entire  addi- 
tional duty  of  one-penny;  the  amount  remaining  in  the 
Enghsh  Treasury  on  Virginia  tobacco  reexported  from 
England  to  foreign  markets  was  thus  only  a  half-penny 
a  pound. 

Of  the  enumerated  colonial  products  the  only  one  which 
could  be  grown  successfully  in  England  was  tobacco.     Hence 
the  preferential  duties  were  not  sufficient  to  give  colonial 
tobacco  a  monopoly  of  the  Enghsh  market;    if   this  were 
desired,  additional  measures  would  be  required.     In  1620, 
in  consideration  of  the  Virginia  Company  agreeing  to  pay 
import  duties  on  tobacco,  which,  while  lower  than  those  on 
the  Spanish  product,  were  in  excess  of  what  it  was  obliged 
to  pay  by  its  charter,  James  I  issued  a  proclamation  pro- 
hibiting the  growmg  of  tobacco  in  England.  2    Subsequently, 
a  number  of  other  proclamations  of  like  tenor,  and  extending 
the  prohibition  to  Ireland,  were  published.    This  Stuart  pro- 
hibition, which  could  never  be  fully  carried  into  effect,  was 
continued  by  the  Interregnum  government  and  was  vigor- 
ously, if  not  completely,  enforced.^    A  variety  of  motives, 

1  By  the  Act  of  1660  a  year  was  allowed,  if  such  goods  were  reshipped  by 
an  English  merchant ;  if  by  an  ahen,  nine  months.  The  period  was  subse- 
quently further  extended. 

2  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  112,  113,  and  Chapter  VI. 
^  Ibid.  pp.  403-408. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES     139 

prominent  among  them  the  desire  to  foster  the  welfare  of  the 
colonies,  underlay  this  policy,  which  was  fully  adopted  by  the 
Restoration  government. 

In  1660,  Parliament  passed  an  Act  prohibiting  under 
severe  penalties  the  growing  of  tobacco  in  England  and 
Ireland,  except  only  in  very  small  quantities  for  scientific 
and  medicinal  purposes.^  As  was  customary,  the  preamble 
of  the  statute  succinctly  summarized  the  actuating  causes  of 
the  measure.  It  stated  that,  after  considering  how  important 
the  colonies  were  and  how  necessary  it  was  that  they  be 
defended  and  encouraged,  since  they  employed  a  quantity 
of  shipping,  were  a  good  market,  and  supplied  England  with 
commodities  formerly  purchased  of  foreigners  at  dearer 
rates;  and  as  tobacco  was  one  of  their  principal  products, 
while  that  grown  in  England  was  not  so  wholesome  and 
besides  diminished  the  customs,  therefore  Parliament  en- 
acted this  prohibition.^  Thus  the  chief  grounds  upon  which 
the  policy  was  based  were  economic ;  the  formerly  so  preva- 
lent moral  opposition  to  the  use  of  the  narcotic  had  virtually 
entirely  disappeared. 

^  12  Ch.  II,  c.  34;  Com.  Journal  VIII,  pp.  194,  197,  212;  House  of 
Lords  MSS.,  H.M.C.  VII,  Part  I,  p.  135.  The  prohibition  naturally  in- 
cluded Wales,  but  also  extended  to  Guernsey  and  Jersey. 

^  In  his  speech  to  the  King,  at  the  end  of  the  session,  in  December  of  1660, 
the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Commons  said,  in  reference  to  this  Act,  that 
the  climate  of  England  was  so  cold  that  tobacco  never  came  to  maturity, 
that  when  manufactured  it  rotted  quickly,  and  that  the  physicians  agreed 
that  it  was  unwholesome.  Besides,  he  said,  the  planting  of  tobacco  in 
England  would  lessen  the  customs,  destroy  the  plantations,  discourage 
navigation  and  shipping,  "which  are  the  walls  and  bulwarks  of  your  maj- 
esty's kingdom."    Pari.  Hist.  IV,  pp.  164  et  seq. 


J 


I 


liii 


I40 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


T 


I 


ill 
III 


V 


III 


It  was  found  extremely  difficult  to  enforce  this  law, 
primarily  because  the  industry  was  most  profitable.  In  a 
number  of  the  coimties  of  southwestern  England,  the  farmers 
were  very  successful  with  this  crop  and  were  exceedingly 
loath  to  abandon  it.  Parliamentary  prohibitions,  though  ac- 
companied by  heavy  fines,  were  hopelessly  inadequate ;  more 
energetic  measures  were  necessary  to  uproot  the  industry. 
Early  in  1 66 1,  on  the  advice  of  the  Coimcil  of  Foreign  Planta- 
tions,^ a  proclamation  was  issued  enjoining  the  strict  execu- 
tion of  the  parliamentary  prohibition  against  growing  to- 
bacco.2  As  this  was  found  ineffective,  on  April  30,  1662,  the 
Privy  Council  instructed  the  High  Sheriff  of  Gloucester- 
shire —  the  centre  of  the  English  tobacco  district  —  to 
pluck  up,  destroy,  and  bum  the  tobacco  grown  and  planted 
there.^  Similar  letters  were  also  sent  to  the  high  sheriffs 
and  justices  of  the  peace  of  the  adjoining  counties,  Worcester 
and  Hereford.^  The  law,  however,  was  not  fully  enforced. 
On  July  13,  1662,^  the  Privy  Council  took  the  High  Sheriff 
of  Gloucestershire  to  task  for  gross  neglect  in  "that 
there  is  very  much  Tobacco  growing  in  that  County 
that  remaines  undestroyed."      Recourse  had  even  to  be 

*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  32. 

«  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  II,  ff.  146,  171 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  303 ;  Brit. 
Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2543,  f.  ^^. 

*  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  II,  f.  622 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  330.  On  May  10, 
1662,  Secretary  Nicholas  wrote  to  this  sheriff  that  the  King,  hearing  that 
he  had  not  left  town  and  considering  that  it  was  then  the  season  for  plant- 
ing tobacco^  wished  him  at  once  to  repair  to  his  county,  so  as  to  put  in  ex- 
ecution the  commands  formerly  given  him.     Cal.  Dom.  1 661-1662,  p.  367. 

*  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  330  n. 
^Ibid. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND   IMPERIAL  FINANCES     141 

had  to  the  militia  in  order  to  gain  some  respect  for  the 

law.^ 

Those  chiefly  affected  by  the  incomplete  enforcement  of 
the  prohibition  complained  to  the  government.  In  1662, 
Sir  WiUiam  Berkeley,  the  Governor  of  Virginia,  and  others 
interested  in  that  colony  and  in  Maryland,  prayed  that  royal 
commands  be  issued  to  the  sheriffs  to  put  the  Act  in  full 
execution.2  The  :^^ers  of  the  Customs  were  also  con- 
cerned, for  the  planting  of  tobacco  in  England  by  so  much 
diminished  the  imports  thereof  and  with  it  the  customs 
revenue.  Accordingly,  in  1663,  more  energetic  measures 
were  adopted.  Parliament  increased  the  penalties  imposed 
on  those  growing  tobacco,^  and  the  Privy  Council  wrote  to 
the  sheriffs  of  the  counties  of  Gloucester,  Worcester,  Here- 
ford, Monmouth,  and  Oxford  that  great  quantities  of  tobacco 
were  still  planted,  and  required  them  to  aid  the  Surveyor 
General  of  the  Farmers  of  the  Customs,  and  such  persons  as 
he  should  see  fit  to  employ,  in  destroying  this  crop.  By  his 
commission  this  officer  was  empowered  to  demand  assistance 
from  the  sheriffs,  justices  of  the  peace,  mayors,  bailiffs, 
constables,  "and  all  other  his  Majesty's  officers  both  Civil 
and  MiHtar}^"^  But,  instead  of  contracting,  the  area  of 
production  was  spreading  both  to  the  East  and  to  the  West. 

1  On  Aug.  6,  1662,  a  correspondent  wrote  from  Bristol  to  the  Marquis  of 
Newcastle  that  the  miUtia  was  to  appear  that  month  to  destroy  the 
tobacco,  in  which  many  there  were  interested.  Portland  MSS.  (H.M.C. 
1893)  II,  p.  144. 

*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  358. 

'  15  Ch.  II,  c.  7,  §  xviii.  The  Act  stated  that,  despite  the  law  of  1660, 
the  English  tobacco  crop  had  increased. 

*  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  367. 


I 


1 


iffi 


m 


1 


*i- 


I  n 

!     :    1 


^['\ 


nil 


t 


fl 


142 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


In  order  to  control  the  situation,  the  government  now 
found  it  necessary  to  employ  the  army.     In  the  spring  of 
1664,  the  Privy  Council  wrote  to  the  High  Sheriff  of  Glouces- 
tershire to  destroy  all  the  tobacco  planted,  especially  that 
near  the  town  of  Winchcomb,  where  the  enforcement  of 
the  law  had  always  been  most  strenuously  resisted.^    At  the 
same  time,  the  Lord-Lieutenant  of  the  county  was  instructed 
to  assist  the  sheriff  with  the  necessary  horse.^   As  tobacco  con- 
tinued to  be  grown,  particularly  in  the  vicinity  of  the  towns 
of  Winchcomb  in  Gloucestershire  and  Evesham  in  Worcester- 
shire, where  the  sheriff  had  been  opposed  and  was  unable  to 
carry  the  prohibition  into  effect,  the  government  two  months 
later  ordered  the  Duke  of  Albemarle  to  send  a  troop  of  horse 
of  the  Earl  of  Oxford's  regiment  to  assist  Thomas  Fownes, 
who  had  been  commissioned  to  destroy  this  tobacco.^    The 
following  year,  1665,  these  instructions  to  Albemarle  were  re- 
peated.^   Yet,  in  1666,  the  Privy  Council  received  informa- 
tion, that  great  preparations  were  being  made  and  that  much 
new  ground  was  in  readiness  for  the  planting  of  tobacco,  and 
again  ordered  the  High  Sheriff  of  Gloucestershire  to  proceed 
against  the  law-breakers.^     Strenuous  opposition  was  en- 
countered, culminating  in  riots  in  Winchcomb  and  Chelten- 
ham, where  the  people  said  "that  they  would  loose  their 
Lines  rather  then  obey  the  Lawes  in  that  case  provided."  ® 

1  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  405-407. 

2  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  IV,  ff.  56,  57;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  377. 

3  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  IV,  f.  117 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  379,  380. 
*  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  V,  f.  165. 

5  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  V,  f.  377 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  408,  409. 
«  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  V,  f.  397 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  410,  411,  416. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES    143 

Similar  difficulties  continued  throughout  1667  and  1668.^ 
In  1667,  the  Farmers  of  the  Customs  complained  of  the 
quantity  of  tobacco  planted  and  of  the  laxity  of  the  local 
officials  in  enforcing  the  law.^  As  some  of  the  justices  of  the 
peace  were  unwiUing  to  obey  the  Privy  Council's  order  for 
the  destruction  of  this  tobacco,  a  troop  of  120  horse-guards 
was  sent  to  Gloucestershire  in  the  summer  of  1667  to  assist 
the  sheriff.'  In  1668,  the  Farmers  of  the  Customs  were  again 
active  in  trying  to  secure  the  enforcement  of  the  law,  and 
obtained  the  cooperation  of  the  Treasury.*  Yet  it  would 
appear  that  not  only  was  the  planting  of  tobacco  not 
stopped,  but  that  it  was  increasing  and  spreading  in  Eng- 
land. Thus,  in  1668,  the  Privy  Council  sent  letters  ordering 
the  destruction  of  the  tobacco  plants  not  only  to  the 
sheriffs  and  justices  of  the  peace  of  the  five  counties  abeady 
mentioned  —  Gloucester,  Worcester,  Hereford,  Oxford,  and 
Monmouth  —  but  also  to  those  of  the  adjacent  counties  of 
Warwick,  Salop,  and  Flint,  as  well  as  to  those  of  the  more 
remote  and  widely  separated,  Essex  and  York.^ 

But  the  planting  of  tobacco  still  continued.    In  1671,  in 

1  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  VI,  ff.  62,  507,  527,  528,  530,  532,  539,  547, 
550,  552,  561,  563 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  430,  431. 

2  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1667-1668,  pp.  42,  59,  225. 

» Fleming  MSS.  (H.M.C.  1890),  p.  52.     See  also  Pepys,  Sept.  19,  1667. 

^  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1667-1668,  pp.  356,  521,  592. 

5  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  VII,  f.  361 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  473-  On  Sept.  9, 
1668,  a  list  of  the  violators  of  the  law  in  Yorkshire  was  read  and  referred  to 
the  Farmers  of  the  Customs.  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  VIII,  f.  5.  Other 
counties  subsequently  referred  to  as  growing  tobacco  were  Lincoln,  Not- 
tingham, and  WUts.  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  XII,  ff.  80,  81,  363 ;  ibid. 
XVI,  ff.  32,  312,  525. 


j 


144 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


II! 


11 

f 

, 

>! 


order  to  make  the  prohibition  more  effective,  Parliament 
granted  greater  authority  to  the  local  officials,  such  as  con- 
stables, bailiffs,  and  tithing-men;^  and,  in  the  same  year, 
another  proclamation  had  to  be  issued  with  renewed  orders 
to  destroy  the  prohibited  crop.^  In  1672,  since  great  prep- 
arations had  been  made  for  growing  tobacco  in  the  counties 
of  Gloucester,  Wilts,  Hereford,  and  Worcester,  to  the  great 
prejudice,  as  was  alleged,  of  navigation,  the  customs  and  the 
colonies,  the  Privy  Council  again  was  forced  to  take  steps  to 
secure  the  destruction  of  the  plants.^  Throughout  the  follow- 
ing decade  the  course  of  events  was  essentially  the  same. 
Every  year  commissions  had  to  be  issued  to  enforce  the  law 
in  the  recalcitrant  coimties,  and  troops  of  horse  had  to  be 
sent  to  assist  in  the  work  and  to  force  the  farmers  to  sub- 
mit.^ In  1682,  or  thereabout,  Winchcomb  was  referred  to 
as  "  the  now  famed  town  .  .  .  because  of  their  late  planting 
tobacco  and  the  soldiers  coming  hither  yearly  to  destroy  it, 
but  now  here  is  little  or  none  planted."  ^  From  about  this 
time  on  much  less  is  heard  of  violations  of  the  law,  and 
hence  presumably  it  was  fairly  effectively  enforced.  But 
until  1690  it  was  necessary  to  commission  special  officials  to 

1  22  &  23  Ch.  II,  c.  26,  §§  i,  ii. 

«  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  VII,  f.  361 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  473. 

'  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  X,  f.  297.  See  also  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1669- 
1672,  p.  1232. 

*  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  XI,  ff.  67,  68,  262,  462 ;  ibid.  XII,  ff.  80,  81, 
363;  ibid.  XVI,  fif.  32,  312;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  592,  611,  630,  631,  667,  726, 
783;  ibid.  II,  pp.  7,  20,  21,  35;  H.M.C.  IX,  Part  II,  p.  450*;  Cal.  Treas. 
Books,  1672-1675,  pp.  482,  483;  ibid.  1676-1679,  pp.  330,  346,  588;  Cal. 
Dom.  1677-1678,  p.  363. 

^  Portland  MSS.  (H.M.C.  1893)  II,  p.  302. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES    145 

destroy  any  tobacco  planted,^  and  that  date  may  be  regarded 
as  marking  the  final  extinction  of  this  flourishing  industry. 
The  first  prohibition  against  English  tobacco  was  issued 
in  1620,  and  thus  it  took  seventy  years  of  more  or  less  con- 
stant effort  and  energetic  measures  to  uproot  this  industry. 
This  in  itself  is  adequate  proof  of  the  fitness  of  England  for 
the  crop  and  of  the  extent  of  the  sacrifice  demanded  from 
the  EngHsh  farmers.     It  was  not  alone  these  farmers  who 
objected  to  the  prohibition.     In   1674,  Carew  Reynell,  a 
contemporary  economic  writer  of  considerable  knowledge 
and  ability,  maintained  that  "that  which  would  bring  infin- 
ite wealth  to  this  Nation  (if  the  Law  would  permit  it)  is  the 
planting  of  Tobacco.  .  .  .    Before  the  severity  of  the  Laws 
against  its  planting,  it  went  well  forward,  and  would  still,  if 
it  were  reversed.  .  .  .     For  by  relation  there  were  above  six 
thousand  Plantations  of  it,  in  Glotccester shire,  Devonshire, 
Sommersetshire,  and  Oxfordshire:  all  the  objections  that  are 
against  it,  cannot  vye  with  the  advantages  that  it  produces." 
The  entire  South  of    England,  he  further  asserted,  was 
adapted  to  its  production;  and,  in  the  opim'on  of  some,  the 
tobacco  was  better  than  the  colonial,  though  others  held  it 
to  be  inferior.     Nor  did  Reynell  agree  with  those  who  main- 
tained that  a  repeal  of  the  prohibition  would  adversely  af- 
fect the  English  customs  revenue  and  mercantile  marine. 
To  the  natural  suggestion  that  such  a  reversal  of  policy 

^  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  XVI,  f.  525;  ibU.  James  II,  I,  f.  177;  III, 

I- 158 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  II,  pp.  36, 135.    Giles  Dowle,  who  was  especially  employed 

in  this  work,  received  a  salary  of  £80,  which  in  1685  was  ordered  inserted 

in  the  regular  estabUshment.    Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  8,  fif.  1 1 1, 
209;  10,  f.  58. 


»i 


146 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


"I 


'•)■ 


1 


would  injure  Virginia,  he  replied:  "What  though  it  should, 
we  are  bound  to  look  to  our  selves  at  home  first."  More- 
over, he  continued,  "it  were  better,  if  that  New-England 
and  Virginia  both,  if  possible,  were  removed  farther  towards 
the  South,  for  then  they  would  consume  our  own  Commodi- 
ties, and  might  meet  with  store  of  Silver  and  riches,  whereas 
now  they  have  Httle  necessary  Trade  for  us,  possessing  only 
such  things  as  we  have."  It  would  be  far  better,  he  further 
argued,  if  Virginia  would  desist  from  growing  tobacco, 
"they  living  but  poorly  on  it,"  and  should  plant  instead 
mulberry  trees,  vines,  and  oHves  as  was  already  being  done 
in  Carolina.^ 

Such  arguments  did  not,  however,  influence  the  govemr 
ment,  and  the  prohibition  was  enforced.  While  a  desire 
to  promote  the  prosperity  of  the  colonies  was  not  the  sole 
motive,  it  was  a  very  prominent  one;^  and  at  all  events 
they  were  the  direct  and  immediate  beneficiaries  of  the 
measure.  In  forming  an  estimate  of  the  old  colonial  system 
this  fact  should  not  be  undervalued  or  ignored.    No  law  reg- 

1  Carew  Reynell,  The  True  English  Interest  (London,  1674),  pp.  32-35. 

'  Even  the  Treasury,  which  was  naturally  mainly  interested  in  the 
fact  that  the  planting  of  tobacco  in  England  diminished  the  customs  revenue, 
emphasized  this  point.  In  its  instructions  for  the  enforcement  of  the  law, 
sent  in  1668,  it  was  said  that  the  EngUsh  industry  was  "to  the  greate  dis- 
couragement of  trade,  destrucion  of  his  Ma*'®^  plantations  and  lessening  of 
his  Ma*'^^  Revenue  of  ye  Customs."  Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  I, 
f.  121.  In  1674,  Treasurer  Latimer  (the  future  Danby)  stated  that  the 
violations  of  this  prohibition  resulted  in  "the  apparent  loss  of  the  King's 
Customs,  the  discoiuragement  of  the  Plantations  in  America,  and  the  great 
prejudice  of  the  trade  and  navigation  of  the  realm."  Cal.  Treas.  Books, 
1672-1675,  pp.  482,  483.  Cf.  also  House  of  Lords  MSS.,  H.M.C.  VIII, 
Part  I,  p.  139*. 


Mil 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES     147 

ulating  colonial  trade  demanded  from  the  over-sea  dominions 
direct  sacrifices  in  any  way  commensurate  with  those  that 
the  farmers  of  southwestern  England  were  forced  to  bear.^ 

The  Old  Subsidy  of  1660  formed  the  basis  of  the  English 
customs  revenue.  During  the  period  of  the  protracted  and 
costly  French  wars,  following  the  Revolution  of  1688/9,  other 
subsidies,  either  partial  or  full  ones,  were  granted  by  Parlia- 
ment, imtil  under  the  first  Hanoverians  the  import  duties 
in  general  amounted  to  three  complete  subsidies.  Thus, 
apart  from  the  tonnage  duties  on  wine  and  other  specific 
taxes,  these  duties  were  at  that  time  equivalent  to  fifteen 
per  cent  of  the  rated  value  of  the  commodities  imported. 
In  addition,  on  various  occasions,  special  imposts  were  voted 
by  Parliament.  During  the  reign  of  Charles  II,  abortive 
attempts  were  made  to  impose  such  additional  duties  on  ' 
colonial  products,  and  finally,  on  the  accession  of  James  II, 
a  heavy  tax  was  laid  on  tobacco  and  sugar. 

In  his  colonial,  as  well  as  in  his  foreign  policy,  Charles  II 
was  hampered  by  financial  difficulties,  which  were  not  of 
his  own  creation.2  The  immoderate  demands  of  his  female 
favorites  and  the  extravagance  of  the  luxurious  Court  were 
by  no  means  the  primary  causes  of  the  grave  fiscal  disorders 

» Naturally  it  should  be  remembered  that  this  EngHsh  industry  pros- 
pered under  the  protection  of  very  high  duties,  and  that  presumably  Eng- 
lish tobacco  could  not  have  competed  on  equal  terms  with  that  of  Virginia 
and  Maryland. 

"Charles  was  driven  into  the  arms  of  Louis  XIV  simply  by  his  financial 

distress  — a  distress  which  was  brought  upon  him  more  by  the  irony  of 

events  and  by  sins  of  omission  of  his  faithful  Commons  than  by  any  sins 

of  commission  of  his  own."    W.  A.  Shaw,  in  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1660-1667 
p.  xlii.  ' 


I 


/ 


II 


148 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


iWl^ 


11  .  i 


I 


m 


iiH 


'M 


iiji 


of  the  reign.  The  estimates  of  the  revenue  granted  by 
Parliament  in  1660  were  far  in  excess  of  the  actual  yield, 
and  the  income  was  hopelessly  inadequate  for  the  legitimate 
expenditures  of  the  government.^  The  ultimate  result  was 
the  virtual  declaration  of  insolvency  by  the  government  in 
1672,  known  as  the  "Stop  of  the  Exchequer.^' ^ 

A  year  before  this,  in  167 1,  an  imsuccessful  attempt  had 
been  made  in  Parliament  to  lay  additional  import  duties  on 
tobacco  and  sugar,  and  a  bill  to  this  effect  was  passed  by  the 
House  of  Commons.  In  this  bill,  the  new  duties  on  English 
colonial  tobacco  were  one  and  a  half  pence  a  pound,  as  op- 
posed to  fourpence  on  the  foreign  product.^  A  petition 
against  these  additional  duties  was  presented  on  behalf  of 
the  merchants,  importers,  and  planters  of  tobacco,^  stating 
that  this  important  trade  would  be  greatly  injured  thereby. 
The  petitioners  asserted  that  their  industry  employed  140 
ships  and  bred  many  mariners,  that  it  gave  England  a  good 
market  for  her  manufactures,  that  the  customs  on  tobacco 
amounted  yearly  to  £100,000,  and  finally  that  the  proposed 
additional  duties  would  divert  the  trade  to  the  Dutch.  In 
addition,  the  customs  officials,  while  maintaining  that  the 
proposed  taxes  would  not  lessen  the  consumption  of  tobacco 
in  England,  pointed  out,  not  only  that  such  high  duties, 
would  stimulate  smuggling,  with  which  they  were  already 
considerably  troubled,  but  also  that  even  under  existing 

*  Ibid.  pp.  xxvi,  xxvii. 

*  Evelyn,  March  12,  1672. 

»  House  of  Lords  MSS.,  H.M.C.  IX,  Part  II,  p.  8*. 

*  Ibid.  p.  10^. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES    149 

conditions  the  tobacco  trade  was  far  from  prosperous.^  The 
House  of  Commons,  however,  remained  unmoved  by  these 
arguments  and  passed  the  additional  duties.^  That  the 
bill  ultimately  failed  of  being  enacted  was  due  to  the  op- 
position to  the  proposed  new  taxes  on  sugar. 

The  tobacco  duties  aroused  slight  opposition  in  comparison 
with  the  sugar  schedule,  which  affected  a  number  of  diverse 
and  conflicting  interests  and  could  not  be  arranged  to  the 
satisfaction  of  all.  The  ensuing  heated  discussions  furnished 
one  of  the  few  occasions,  such  as  in  1 731-1733  and  in  1764- 
1766,  when  colonial  matters  occupied  the  centre  of  the 
parliamentary  stage.  Apart  from  the  consumer,  who  is 
usually  mute  when  such  questions  vitally  affecting  him  are 
discussed,  the  chief  interests  concerned  in  the  proposed  addi- 
tional duties  on  sugar  were:  (i)  the  merchants  trading  to 

1  Ibid.  p.  10^.  These  views  were  partially  confirmed  by  a  memorial 
of  this  year,  wherein  it  was  maintained  that  the  tobacco  trade  was  grossly 
mismanaged.  In  agreement  with  the  general  statement  of  the  customs 
officials,  it  was  asserted  that  last  year  many  merchants  had  lost  heavily 
on  their  importations  of  tobacco.  Hence,  it  was  argued,  if  the  duties  were 
further  increased,  the  trade  would  be  ruined  and  many  other  mischiefs 
would  follow;  "most  of  them  have  beene  made  manifest  in  the  Virginia 
Merchants  reasons,  therefore  here  omitted."  The  writer  of  this  memorial 
then  gave  several  instances  of  gross  frauds  in  the  tobacco  duties  perpe- 
trated with  the  collusion  of  the  EngUsh  customs  officials,  and  proposed: 
(i)  that  all  tobacco  be  landed  at  London,  and  that  none  be  sent  thence  in 
an  unmanufactured  state,  unless  it  were  exported ;  (2)  that  the  importer  be 
allowed  time  to  pay  the  duties  and  that  they  be  repaid  in  full  on  exporta- 
tion. Under  these  conditions,  he  thought  that  even  an  additional  duty  of 
Ad.  would  not  be  harmful.    Brit.  Mus.,  Harleian  MSS.  1238,  ff.  20-22. 

^  On  the  strength  of  these  arguments  against  the  proposed  duties,  the 
Conunittee  in  charge,  by  a  vote  of  18  to  4,  reduced  the  additional  duty  from 
i^d.  to  id.,  but  the  House  negatived  this  amendment. 


/" 


ISO 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


*( 


i|i>ld 


.til 


Portugal  and  their  allies,  the  English  woollen  manufacturers; 
(2)  the  EngHsh  sugar  refiners;  (3)  the  EngHsh  merchants 
trading  to  the  West  Indies;  (4)  and  the  colonial  sugar  plant- 
ers. Each  one  of  these  four  distinct  groups  was  active  in 
furthering  its  own  special  interests. 

As  a  result  of  the  combmed  effects  of  Portugal's  restrictive 
colonial  system  ^  and  of  the  preferential  treatment  accorded 
to  Enghsh  colonial  products  in  the  tariff  of  1660,  the  ship- 
ments of  Brazilian  sugar  to  England  at  this  time  amounted 
to  only  2000  chests  (costing  £40,000),  whereas  formerly 
16,000  chests  had  been  imported.^  This  sugar  bought  in 
Portugal  was  very  highly  refined  and  sold  in  the  EngHsh 
market  for  from  £3  to  £3  10^.  the  hundredweight,  whereas 
the  price  of  the  EngHsh  refined  sugars,  which  in  general  were 
coarser,  was  only  45  to  50  shiUings.  Hence  it  was  main- 
tained that,  if  additional  duties  were  imposed,  those  on 
Portuguese  refined  sugars  should  in  equity  be  at  least  pro- 
portionately higher.3    But  England  at  this  time  had  a  con- 

1  Brazilian  sugars  had  first  to  be  landed  in  Portugal,  and  were  subjected 
to  heavy  taxes  before  reaching  the  foreign  market. 

*  These  and  the  subsequent  facts  about  this  Portuguese  trade  are  derived 
from  two  memorials  prepared  during  the  controversy.  One  is  in  Bodleian, 
RawHnson  A  478,  f.  63 ;  House  of  Lords  MSS.,  H.M.C.  IX,  Part  II,  p.  11^'; 
C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  215.  The  other  is  in  House  of  Lords  MSS.,  H.M.C. 
IX,  Part  II,  p.  I  a''. 

'  The  colonial  interests  asserted  that  owing  to  natural  conditions  — 
low,  fertile  grounds,  cheap  horses,  cattle,  and  negroes,  abundant  water  car- 
riage and  water  power  for  grinding  —  sugar  could  be  produced  30  per  cent 
more  cheaply  in  Brazil  than  in  the  English  West  Indies.  If  the  additional 
duty  were  the  same  on  Portuguese  as  on  Enghsh  refined  sugar,  they  claimed, 
it  would  ' '  mine  the  Enghsh  Sugar  Trade,  and  the  Guiny  Trade  that  depends 
on  it,  which  alone  vents  more  of  our  manufactures,  than  doth  Portugal." 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPEIOAL  FINANCES     151 

siderable  export  trade  to  Portugal  in  woollens  and  other 
commodities,  which,  it  was  so  alleged,  employed  150  ships 
and  amounted  yearly  to  £350,000.  The  merchants  engaged 
therein  claimed  that  a  further  heavy  tax  on  Portuguese  sugar 
would  cripple  their  trade  and  throw  it  into  the  hands  of  the 
French  and  Dutch.  ^ 

The  EngHsh  refiners  were  also  directly  interested  in  the 
proposed  new  duties.  As  a  consequence  of  the  great  ex- 
pansion of  sugar  planting  in  the  English  West  Indies,  sugar 
refining  in  England  had  become  an  important  industry.  In 
1671,  it  was  said,  there  were  thirty  refineries  as  opposed  to 
only  six,  twenty  years  prior  thereto.^  In  addition,  in  Bar- 
bados, but  in  none  of  the  other  colonies,  a  small  quantity  of 
sugar  was  refined  and  a  considerably  larger  quantity  was 
somewhat  improved.  When  imported  into  England,  this 
partially  refined  sugar  paid  only  the  same  duties  as  the  raw 
product.^    Under  the  tariff  of  1660,  English  colonial  refined 

^  The  colonial  interests  showed  that  England,  as  it  was,  imported  but  Kttle 
BraziUan  sugar,  and  hence  maintained  that  England's  export  trade  to  Por- 
tugal was  not  dependent  on  the  sugar  imports  thence.  They  further  con- 
tended that  only  about  one-quarter  of  the  sugar  bought  by  Enghsh  mer- 
chants in  Portugal  was  shipped  to  England,  the  bulk  being  carried  in  Enghsh 
vessels  to  other  markets. 

2  The  colonial  interests  asserted  that  there  were  only  twelve  refiners 
m  England  in  167 1.  These  and  the  subsequent  facts  are  derived  from 
various  memorials  prepared  during  the  controversy :  C.  0.  31/2,  ff.  50  et  seq. ; 
ibid.  ff.  54  et  seq.  ;  Bodleian,  Rawhnson  A  478,  f.  63  ;  House  of  Lords  MSS., 
H.M.C.  IX,  Part  II,  p.  12'' ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  215,  216.  Professor  E.  R. 
A.  Seligman  has  in  his  remarkable  library  a  contemporary  broadsheet  giv- 
ing the  case  of  the  Enghsh  refiners  and  the  planters'  answer. 

'  The  various  grades  of  sugar  made  in  Barbados  were:  (i)  Muscovados, 
which  was  simply  the  juice  of  the  cane  boiled  to  a  consistency  and  put  into 


1 1 


152 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


t 


m 


sugar  paid  duties  of  five  shillings  the  hundredweight,  as  op- 
posed to  one  shiUing  and  sixpence  on  the  raw  and  partially 
refined  commodity.  The  ratio  was  thus  three  and  one- 
third  to  one.  The  object  of  the  English  refiners  was  to  have 
this  ratio  maintained  and  even  enlarged,  so  that  refined 
sugar  could  not  be  profitably  imported  from  the  colonies; 
and  they  also  wanted  partially  refined  sugars  imported  from 
the  colonies  to  pay  higher  duties  than  the  raw  product. 
With  this  object  in  view,  various  calculations  were  prepared 
by  them  to  demonstrate  that  it  took  at  least  four  pounds  of 
raw  sugar  to  make  one  of  refined.  This  was  exaggerated, 
and  so  also  was  the  opposing  contention  of  the  colonial  in- 
terests to  the  effect  that  only  two  pounds  of  brown  were  re- 
quired to  make  one  of  white.^    It  was  further  maintained  on 

pots,  the  molasses  or  syrup  being  then  drawn  off ;  (2)  Sun-dried  was  made  in 
the  same  way,  but  was  subsequently  dried  in  the  sun  for  from  six  to  eight 
hours ;  (3)  Clayed  was  muscovado  with  the  molasses  washed  from  the  grain. 
When  taken  from  the  pot,  the  clayed  sugar  was  divided  into  two  kinds,  of 
which  a  small  portion  was  white  and  the  balance  brown.  All  these  grades,  ex- 
cept the  small  quantity  of  white  sugar,  paid  duties  in  England  of  only  is.6d. 
the  cwt.  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  ff .  640,  641 .  The  English  refiners 
stated  that,  in  1669,  8338  tons  of  brown  and  only  118  tons  of  white  sugar 
were  imported.  Houseof  Lords  MSS.,  H.M.C.IX,  Part  II,p.  I2^  In  one 
of  the  colonial  memorials,  it  was  asserted  that  two-thirds  of  the  planters  in 
Barbados  improved  their  sugars  and  that  the  rest  could  not  make  both  ends 
meet.  This  was  a  gross  exaggeration,  unless  the  term  "improved"  was 
meant  to  include  the  most  rudimentary  processes  of  partial  refining.  Twenty 
years  later  it  was  stated  that  one-quarter  of  the  imports  from  Barbados 
consisted  of  clayed  or  purged  sugars.    Brit.  Mus.,  Stowe  MSS.  324,  f.  8. 

1  In  1670-167 1,  the  price  of  refined  sugar  in  England  varied  according  to 
the  quaUty  from  455.  to  70s.,  while  that  of  the  raw  article  was  about  23s. 
C.  O.  31/2,  ff.  54  et  seq. ;  Bodleian,  Rawlinson  A  478,  f.  63 ;  House  of  Lords 
MSS.,  H.M.C.  IX,  Part  U,  p.  i3». 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES    153 

behalf  of  the  colonies  that,  if  the  proposed  additional  duties 
were  based  on  a  ratio  of  four  to  one,  the  English  refiners 
would  not  only  have  so  overwhelming  an  advantage  over 
those  in  the  colonies  that  they  would  be  able  to  engross  the 
entire  white  sugar  trade,  but,  as  the  only  buyers  of  brown 
sugar,  they  would  also  be  able  to  set  the  price  for  it  ^  to  the 
utter  undoing  of  the  sugar  colonies.'  In  addition  to  wanting 
this  liberal  dift'erential,  the  English  sugar  manufacturers  de- 
sired a  large  drawback  paid  on  the  exportation  of  their  prod- 
uct, as  under  existing  conditions  they  could  not  compete  in 
neutral  markets  with  the  continental  refiners,  who  were  able 
to  secure  English  raw  sugar  more  cheaply  than  they  could. 
The  English  refiners  paid  the  full  duty  on  this  raw  sugar  and 
received  no  drawback  on  the  refined  product  exported  by 
them,  while  one-half  of  the  duties  on  raw  sugar  was  refunded 
when  it  was  reexported  from  England  to  foreign  markets.^ 
The  English  merchants  engaged  in  the  West  Indian  trade 
at  this  time  actively  supported  the  English  refiners,  mainly 
because  the  refining  of  sugar  in  the  colonies  would  have 
lessened  the  amount  of  freight  available  for  their  ships.^ 
On  their  part,  the  colonies  opposed  any  additional  tax  on 

*  In  1680,  it  was  pointed  out  that,  as  a  result  of  this  drawback  system, 
the  Dutch  were  able  to  secure  English  sugars  and  dyeing  stuffs  more  cheaply 
than  could  the  manufacturers  in  England,  and  hence  had  been  enabled  "  to 
set  up  and  beat  us  out  of  the  Forreign  Trade  of  baked  sugars,  of  which  they 
bake  and  vend  above  20  times  the  quantity  the  English  do ;  so  do  they  now 
use  the  greatest  part  of  our  Dying  Stuffs,  gaining  near  as  much,  if  not  more, 
by  these  manufactures  than  the  raw  materials  yield  the  English."  Britan- 
nia Languens  (London,  1680),  p.  174. 

*  They  also  prepared  a  number  of  memorials:   C.  O.  1/26,  58;   C.  O. 
31/2,  ff.  54  et  seq. ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  216. 


/ 


154 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


II M 


ill 


K 


)! 


Ill 


their  produce,  wanted  prohibitory  duties  on  all  foreign 
sugars,  and  sought  to  secure  only  a  small  differential  between 
the  refined  and  the  raw  product  so  that  they  could  compete 
with  the  EngHsh  refiners.^ 

As  is  seemingly  inevitable  in  such  controversies,  these 
various  groups,  with  their  conflicting  interests,  issued  mis- 
leading and  inaccurate  memorials  and  statements,  omitting 
damaging  facts  and  over-emphasizing  favorable  ones.  The 
interests  of  the  West  Indies  were  ably  represented  in  Eng- 
land by  the  Committee  of  Gentlemen  Planters  of  Barbados, 
among  whom  were  such  influential  men  as  Sir  Peter  CoUeton, 
who  was  also  connected  with  the  Carolinas,  and  Ferdinando 
Gorges,  the  proprietor  of  Maine.  When,  in  the  fall  of  1670, 
the  scheme  for  an  additional  tax  on  sugar  was  broached,  this 
committee  presented  a  carefully  prepared  memorial  to  the 
Councfl  for  Plantations,  and  also  submitted  the  same  facts 
to  Parliament.  They  maintained  ^  that,  prior  to  1666,  the 
EngUsh  West  Indies  (Jamaica  excluded)  had  employed 
annually  400  EngUsh  ships  with  over  10,000  seamen  and  had 
produced  a  native  commodity  worth  over  £800,000  yearly 
to  the  nation.  This  sugar,  they  stated,  had  contributed 
largely  to  the  English  customs  revenue,  and  one-half  of  it 

1  On  Dec.  14,  1670,  the  representatives  of  Barbados  in  England  wrote  to 
the  colony  that '  Parliament  is  now  laying  a  very  heavy  imposition  on  sugars, 
which  is  like  to  put  the  ratio  in  favour  of  Portugal  and  the  refiners  of 
England,  which  the  writers  are  labouring  to  withstand.'     C.  C.  1669-1674, 

p.  141. 

2  C.  O.  389/5,  ff.  12-14;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  129,  130,  214,  21s;  C.  0. 
1/26,  57;  House  of  Lords  MSS.,  H.M.C.  IX,  Part  II,  pp.  iiMi**;  Brit. 
Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.,  2395,  ff.  638  et  seq.;  Bodleian,  Rawlinson  A  478, 
f.  63. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES     155 

had  been  again  reshipped  from  England  to  foreign  mar- 
kets. The  planter^s  gain,  they  contended,  had  been  small, 
while  the  advantages  to  England  had  been  important, 
though  "till  of  late  the  Plantations  never  cost  his  Ma^'^  or 
his  Predecessors  anything  for  their  maintenance  or  preser- 
vation.'' Up  to  1666,  they  continued,  the  French  had  made 
very  little  sugar  in  the  West  Indies,  but  in  that  and  the 
following  year  they  captured  the  English  part  of  St.  Kitts 
and  also  Antigua  and  Montserrat,  and  seized  in  these  islands 
over  15,000  negroes  and  materials  for  150  sugar  works, 
amounting  in  value  to  £400,000,  which  they  carried  to  their 
own  colonies.  As  a  result,  the  memorialists  said,  the  French 
sugar  output  had  greatly  increased  and  their  islands  had 
become  strong  and  populous.  Moreover,  being  desirous  of 
becoming  great  at  sea  and  of  gaining  supremacy  in  the  sugar 
trade,  France  was  encouraging  her  colonies,  and  among  other 
measures  had  imposed  virtually  prohibitive  duties  on  EngHsh 
sugars.  In  consequence,  the  French  West  Indies  were  pros- 
pering and  had  "become  terrible  to  the  English  Inhabitants 
in  that  part  of  the  World,''  while  the  English  sugar  islands 
were  declining.  Their  sugar  had  fallen  greatly  in  value,  and 
their  planters  were  emigrating  to  foreign  colonies.  From 
these  premises  the  irresistible  conclusion  was  drawn  that  the 
English  plantations  were  in  no  way  able  to  bear  a  further 
imposition  on  their  sugars,  since  it  "alwaies  faUs  vpon  the 
Planters,"  but  that  rather,  after  the  example  of  France,  a 
higher  duty  should  be  laid  on  the  foreign  product.^ 

^  In  1664  and  1665,  Colbert  imposed  very  high  duties  on  foreign  refined 
sugars,  which  led  to  the  rapid  development  of  the  French  refining  industry. 


>!' 


/i  ' 


156 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


li* 


ri 


/ 


%\ 


^\ 


The  gist  of  this  doleful  memorial,  which  grossly  exag- 
gerated the  relative  economic  condition  of  the  French  and 
EngHsh  West  Indies,  as  well  as  other  vital  facts,  was  that 
no  further  tax  should  be  imposed  on  Enghsh  sugars,  while 
the  small  quantity  of  Portuguese  refined  sugar  imported 
should  be  totally  excluded  by  a  prohibitive  duty.^  In  their 
efforts  in  the  House  of  Commons,  these  representatives  of 
Barbados  came  into  conflict  with  the  EngHsh  refiners  who 
wanted  the  schedule  so  arranged  that  sugars  could  not  be 

In  1665  also,  French  raw  sugars  were  given  preferential  treatment  over  those 
of  foreign  countries,  but  by  this  arrit  no  distinction  was  made  between  the 
various  grades  of  French  colonial  sugars,  and  all,  whether  refined  or  unre- 
fined, had  to  pay  a  uniform  duty  of  4  livres  per  cwt.  Under  this  arrange- 
ment it  was  far  more  advantageous  to  refine  sugar  in  the  colonies  than  in 
France,  and  a  considerable  industry  was  established  in  them.  The  French 
refiners  complained  of  the  handicap  imposed  upon  them,  and  accordingly 
in  1682  the  duty  on  colonial  refined  sugar  was  raised  to  8  hvres,  and  two  years 
later  the  estabUshment  of  new  refineries  in  the  islands  was  prohibited. 
S.  L.  Mims,  Colbert's  West  India  PoHcy,  pp.  263-279.  The  ratio  adopted 
was  thus  two  to  one,  but  it  took  from  two  and  a  half  to  three  pounds  of  raw 
sugar  to  make  one  of  refined.  Thus  these  duties  still  gave  an  advantage  to 
the  colonial  refiners,  in  addition  to  the  initial  one  that  they  enjoyed  from  the 
fact  that  they  had  to  pay  the  freight  to  France  on  only  the  refined  product, 
while  their  French  competitors  had  to  pay  these  charges  on  the  bulky  raw 
product.  Apart  from  the  differences  in  cost  of  labor  and  capital,  which 
naturally  were  fundamental,  it  would  appear  that  the  ratio  adopted  by  the 
English  government  in  1660  would  in  other  respects  have  placed  the  colo- 
nial and  European  refiner  on  a  parity. 

1  On  April  20,  1671,  the  Barbados  Assembly  wrote  to  the  Gentlemen 
Planters  in  London,  thanking  them  for  their  great  pains  and  endeavors  to 
prevent  the  new  impost  on  sugar,  and  instructing  them  to  keep  up  the  oppo- 
sition, but  that,  if  the  new  tax  could  not  be  prevented,  they  should  then 
labor  as  much  as  was  possible  to  have  it  doubled  on  foreign  sugars,  so  that 
only  those  from  the  English  colonies  could  be  imported.  C.  O.  31/2,  f.  29; 
C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  199. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND   IMPERIAL  FINANCES     157 

profitably  refined  in  the  colonies.^  The  additional  schedule 
at  first  suggested  was  one  farthing  a  pound  on  raw  and  one 
penny  on  white  sugars  from  the  EngHsh  colonies,  as  opposed 
to  twopence  on  those  of  foreign  production.  In  view  of 
the  discrimination  against  Portuguese  sugars,  the  Barbados 
Committee  was  not  much  dissatisfied  and  was  willing  to 
accept  the  proposed  schedule.  But  the  merchants  trading 
to  Portugal  objected  and,  on  showing  how  advantageous 
was  their  trade,  secured  a  reduction  of  the  duty  on  foreign 
refined  sugars  to  one-penny.  The  EngHsh  refiners,  supported 
by  the  English  merchants  trading  to  Barbados,  then  sug- 
gested that  a  duty  of  one  half-penny  a  pound  be  imposed 
on  a  new  class  of  "clayed"  sugars.  This  would  have  been 
levied  on  the  partiaUy  refined  sugars  made  in  Barbados, 
which  hitherto  had  paid  the  same  duties  as  raw  sugar.^ 
To  this  the  Conmiittee  of  Planters  objected,  and  urged  that, 
if  a  new  duty  had  to  be  placed  on  sugar,  the  English  colo- 
nial product  should  receive  preferential  treatment.  They 
also  insisted  that  refining  in  the  colonies  should  not  be  dis- 
couraged by  high  duties.  "In  this,"  they  wrote  to  the 
Barbados  Assembly  "we  were  vehemently  opposed  by  the 
Refine''  and  our  merchants  who  aUeadged,  that  white  Sugar 
was  the  Interest  of  not  aboue  five  Planters  &  that  to  Dis- 
courage the  making  of  itt  in  the  Plantacons  was  the  Interest 

^  On  May  i,  1671,  this  Committee  sent  a  detailed  accoimt  of  the  proceed- 
ings in  Parliament  to  the  Barbados  Assembly.  Barbados  Assembly  Journal, 
1670-1683:  C.  O.  31/2,  ff.  45-76;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  212-214. 

^  The  English  refiners  stated  that  4I  lbs.  of  brown  equalled  in  value  i  lb. 
of  white  sugar,  and  that  3  lbs.  of  brown  equalled  i  lb.  of  clayed  sugar.  House 
of  Lords  MSS.,  H.M.C.  IX,  Part  II,  p.  i2'».    Cf.  ibid.  p.  I3^ 


illilli 


/    ' 


I   I 


I'^S 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


¥i\i 


m 


\    ^ 


W. 


of  England  &  the  Generallity  of  ye  planters."  As  the 
House  of  Commons  found  the  Barbados  Committee  thus 
flatly  contradicted  by  the  West  India  merchants,  of  whom 
some  had  hved  in  that  colony,  it  accepted  the  schedule 
before  it  and  passed  the  bill.^ 

The  Barbados  Committee,  knowing,  so  they  wrote, 
*'the  Lords  to  bee  men  unconcerned  &  of  more  discerning 
Judgem*  than  the  GeneraUity  of  the  Commons,"  continued 
the  fight  when  the  measure  reached  the  upper  house.  They 
handed  in  a  memorial,  and  so  did  the  other  interested  parties 
—  the  Lisbon  traders,  the  English  refiners,  and  the  merchants 
trading  to  Barbados.  The  Governor  of  Barbados,  William, 
Lord  Willoughby  of  Parham,  vigorously  supported  the 
planters,  and  the  House  of  Lords  was  induced  to  reduce  the 
duty  on  English  white  sugars  from  one-penny  to  two  and  a 
half  farthings  ^  and  to  omit  the  new  class  of  partially  refined 
sugars.^  So  amended,  the  bill  was  returned  to  the  House  of 
Commons,  which  "flew  into  a  heate  and  voted  the  Lords 
had  noe  righte  to  abate  of  any  ayd  Graunted  to  the  King  & 
sent  them  that  message."  Various  conferences  followed,  in 
which  each  house  adhered  to  its  position,  and  on  the  King 
proroguing  Parliament,  the  bill  fell.*    This  was  the  famous 

1  The  fuU  schedule  is  in  House  of  Lords  MSS.,  H.M.C.  IX,  Part  II,  p.  8*. 
In  order  to  encourage  sugar  refining  in  England,  large  drawbacks  were  also 
granted  on  the  exportation  of  white  sugars. 

2  The  Lords  adopted  the  ratio  between  refined  and  raw  sugar  of  2^  to  i, 
the  Commons  that  of  4  to  i. 

3  These  amendments  are  in  House  of  Lords  MSS.,  H.M.C.  IX,  Part  II, 

p.  10*. 

*  See  also  Com.  Journal  IX,  pp.  238-240;  F.  R.  Harris,  Edward,  Earl 

of  Sandwich. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES    159 

precedent  so  often  cited  during  the  constitutional  contro- 
versies about  the  British  budget  of  1909. 

Owing  to  this  dispute  between  the  two  Houses,  the  attempt 
to  impose  additional  duties  on  tobacco  and  sugar  failed  in 
1671.    But  the  question  was  not  definitely  tabled.     When 
sending  the  details  of  what  had  happened  to  the  colony,  the 
Barbados  Committee  wrote  that  it  was  necessary  to  get 
the  English  merchants  trading  to  the  West  Indies  interested 
in  their  'improved  sugars,'  in  order  to  separate  them  from 
the  refiners,  because,  if  united,  these  two  groups  might  be 
too  powerful,  should  Parliament  again  take  up  this  measure. 
Moreover,  they  added  that  the  King  was  not  pleased  with 
the  loss  of  the  bill,  which  was  occasioned  wholly  by  the  dis- 
pute about  sugar.    On  hearing  of  the  f aUure  of'  the  biU, 
the  Barbados  Assembly  wrote  to  Lord  WiDoughby,  thanking 
him  for  his  work  in  the  House  of  Lords,  and  asserting  that 
the  colony  would  be  ruined  if  a  further  tax  were  imposed 
on  their  sugar,  unless  that  on  the  foreign  product  were  at 
the   same   time   doubled.^    They   Hkewise   wrote   to   the 
Gentlemen  Planters  in  London  to  continue  their  efforts  at 
the  next  parliamentary  session,  and  enclosed  a  petition  to 
the  King  which  asserted  that  Barbados  was  already  in  a 
decHning  state.  ^ 

During  the  foUowing  fourteen  years  the  project  was  kept 
alive,  and  a  number  of  memorials  opposed  and  advocated 
various  schemes  for  additional  duties  on  tobacco  and  sugar.' 

'  C.  O.  31/2,  fP.  41-45,  86,  87;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  231,  283. 
^'  C.  O.  31/2,  ff.  87-91 ;   C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  283,  284. 
'  "The  Virginia  Trade  Stated,"  evidently  of  1677,  opposed  the  imposition 
ot  further  duties  on  tobacco,  using  the  old  arguments  and  especiaUy  empha- 


'  f 


m 


I 


I 


1 60 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Nothing,  however,  was  done  until  the  accession  of  James  II, 
in  1685,  when  Parliament  granted  for  eight  years  heavy 
additional  duties  on  tobacco  and  sugar.^    The  bill  was 
devised  by  one  of  the  ablest  men  of  the  day,  the  economist 
Sir  Dudley  North,  then  one  of  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Customs,  and  was  vigorously  supported  by  him  in  the 
House  of  Commons.     It  aroused  great  opposition  there,^ 
and  also  outside  of  Parliament,  from  the  merchants,  retailers 
and  consumers,  "as  if  the  utter  ruin  of  all  the  plantations 
was  to  follow ;  and  all  trading  from  thence,  and  all  dealing 
whatever  in  those  commodities,  were  all  to  be  confounded 
at  one  single  stroke.'^  ^    The  additional  duty  imposed  on 
Enghsh  colonial  tobacco  was  threepence  a  pound,  as  opposed 
to  sixpence  additional  laid  on  the  foreign  product.    Thus, 

sizing  the  prevaiKng  depression  in  the  tobacco  trade.  C.  O.  1/41,  142.  In 
1673,  an  anonymous  writer  discussed  the  question  of  the  sugar  duties. 
C.  0!  1/30,  10;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  469,  470-  See  also  the  two  memorials 
in  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  ff.  636 ;  ff.  640,  641. 

1  I  Jac.  II,  c.  4 ;  Com.  Journal  IX,  pp.  724,  733,  737,  738 ;  Egmont  MSS. 

(H.M.C.  1909)  II,  P-  iS"^. 

2  It  "made  a  greater  stir,  and  had  more  opposition  in  parhament,  than 
any  later  revenue  or  supply  biU  ever  had ;  and,  upon  voting  the  supply, 
and  charging  it  so  to  be  levied,  it  was  cried  out  upon  as  if  it  had  been  a  sur- 
render of  Hberty  and  property."  Roger  North,  Lives  of  the  Norths  (Lon- 
don, 1826)  II,  p.  122.  Sir  John  Reresby  states  that  the  proposed  taxes 
were  "  much  opposed  "  by  many  members  of  the  House  of  Commons,  who 
had  direct  or  indirect  interests  in  the  colonies.  They  argued  that  these 
taxes  would  handicap  the  EngHsh  colonies  in  competing  with  the  French. 
Reresby  repUed  that,  if  the  rates  were  so  high  as  to  discourage  consumption 
in  England,  this  might  happen ;  but,  if  the  colonies  sold  as  much  as  formerly, 
these  additional  duties  "  could  neitiier  prejudice  our  plantations  or  naviga- 
tion."   The  Memoirs  of  Sir  John  Reresby  (ed.  Cartwright),  pp.  33°,  33i- 

»  Roger  North,  op.  ciL  III,  pp.  161-164. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL   SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES    161 

under  the  Acts  of  1660  and  1685,  the  total  duty  on  colonial 
tobacco  was  fivepence  and  that  on  foreign  tobacco  one 
shilling  the  pound.^  The  sugar  schedule  was  more  com- 
plicated, but  likewise  contained  the  same  preferential 
treatment  of  English  colonial  products.  Muscovado  or 
raw  sugar  paid  additional  duties  of  one  farthing  a  pound,  if 
English ;  of  two  farthings,  if  foreign.  White  or  refined  sugar 
from  the  English  colonies  was  subjected  to  an  additional 
duty  of  three  farthings,  as  opposed  to  five  farthings  imposed 
on  that  of  foreign  production.^ 

In  order  to  prevent  any  diminution  of  the  sale  of  tobacco 
and  sugar  in  the  international  markets,  on  the  reexportation 
of  these  commodities  from  England,  the  additional  duties 
were  refunded  in  their  entirety.^    It  was  the  design  of  Par- 

1  This  additional  duty  on  tobacco  was  opposed  on  the  grounds :  (i)  that 
the  trade  was  depressed,  the  existing  charges  being  already  "more  tiian 
often  times  the  Commodity  yielded";  (2)  that  tiiese  high  duties  would 
encourage  smuggUng  and  would  lessen  EngUsh  consumption,  experience 
showing  that,  the  higher  the  tax,  tiie  less  the  revenue ;  (3)  that  these  duties 
would  stimulate  the  production  of  tobacco  in  Germany,  France,  and  Hol- 
land and  would  tempt  the  traders  to  violate  the  enumeration  of  tobacco ; 
(4)  that  necessity  would  force  the  colonies  to  use  their  lands  for  raising 
provisions  and  would  obHge  them  to  make  manufactures  hitherto  obtained 
from  England.    Brit.  Mus.,  Harleian  MSS.  1238,  f.  2. 

2  Moreover,  foreign  loaf  sugar  had  to  pay  an  additional  duty  of  three- 
pence a  pound.  The  additional  duty  of  tiiree  farthings  was  imposed  on  Eng- 
lish sugar  "fitt  for  Common  use  or  Spending."  As  some  muscovado  sugars 
were  fit  for  consumption,  the  question  arose  if  they  were  in  consequence 
liable  to  this  higher  duty.  The  Attorney-General,  Sir  Thomas  Powys, 
decided  in  1687  that  it  was  clearly  the  intention  of  ParUament  that  the  extra 
duty  on  all  English  muscovado  sugars  should  be  only  one  farthing  Brit 
Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  30,218,  f.  134. 

The  miporter  got  possession  of   the  goods  on  giving  security  for  the 
duty,  and,  if  the  goods  had  not  been  sold  or  exported  within  eighteen  months, 


iit^ 


l62 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


ENGLISH  FISCAL   SYSTEM  AND   IMPERIAL  FINANCES     163 


i 


■'Wti 


w\ 


iHIti 


4  \^  1 


liament  in  imposing  these  taxes  that  they  should  be  wholly 
borne  by  the  consumer  in  England,  the  "consumptioner" 
as  the  statute  called  him,  and  not  at  all  by  the  planter  or 
importer.  With  this  idea  in  view,  a  curiously  naive  scheme 
was  devised.  The  additional  duties  were  not  made  payable 
by  the  importer  —  he  merely  gave  security  for  their  ulti- 
mate payment  —  but  by  the  first  buyer  on  receipt  of  the 
goods.^  On  June  26,  1685,  a  circular  letter  was  sent  in 
the  King's  name  to  the  various  colonial  Governors,  inform- 
ing them  of  the  new  duties  and  stating  that,  as  they  were 
"not  laid  on  the  Planter  or  Merchant,  but  only  upon  the 
Retailer,  Consumptioner,  or  Shopkeeper,  wee  are  well  assured 
(they)  will  not  be  inconvenient  or  burthensome  to  our 
Subjects  under  Yo'  Government."  ^ 

The  impost  of  1685  aroused  considerable  hostile  feeling 
in  some  of  the  colonies,^  especially  in  Barbados,  which 
was  in  the  forefront  of  every  movement  of  opposition  to 
England's  economic  measures.  The  Virginia  Assembly 
sent  an  address,  in  which  the  Coimcil  and  Governor,  how- 
he  had  to  pay  the  duty,  i  Jac.  II,  c.  4,  §  x.  The  period  during  which  the 
tobacco  could  be  reexported  was  subsequently  extended  to  three  years. 
7  Geo.  I,  Stat,  i,  c.  21,  §  x.  Large  allowances  were  made  for  cash  payment  of 
the  duties  and  for  damage  and  shrinkage  while  the  goods  were  in  the  im- 
porters' hands,     i  Jac.  II,  c.  4,  §§  viii,  ix;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  71,  98,  99; 

C.  O.  1/56,  67. 

1  For  the  administrative  features,  see  Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs 
10,  ff .  36, 38, 40-42, 45,  50,  56,  1 1 2, 1 26.  This  cumbersome  system  was  aban- 
doned in  1696.     7  &  8  W.  Ill,  c.  10,  §  iii. 

2  C.  O.  31/3,  ff.  135-137,  141-143;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  59. 

3  Randolph  wrote  that  he  feared  it  was  injuring  New  England,  whose  trade 
to  the  colonies  directly  affected  had  decayed  very  much  since  its  imposi- 
tion.   Goodrick,  Randolph  VI,  p.  235. 


ever,  refused  to  join,  praying  the  King  to  dispense  with  the 
new  duty  on  account  of  the  low  price  of  tobacco,  and  assert- 
ing that  the  tax, '  though  designed  to  fall  on  the  retailer  and 
consumer,  would  surely  fall  on  the  planter.'  ^  At  the  same 
time,  the  Governor,  Lord  Howard  of  Effingham,  wrote  that 
"the  late  Additional  Imposition  on  Tobacco  has  so  dis- 
turbed the  Planters  here,  either  by  the  not  right  apprehend- 
ing the  Act,  or  by  their  fears  that  their  Diana  and  Sole 
Commodity  will  Downe  and  Come  to  nothing  that  it  is 
difficult  to  persuade  them  otherwise."  ^ 

On  August  29,  1685,^  before  the  exact  terms  of  the  law 
were  known  in  Jamaica,  Lieutenant-Governor  Hender 
Molesworth  wrote  to  William  Blathwayt  that  the  additional 
duties  would  greatly  discourage  planting  and  would  throw 
land  out  of  cultivation.  Not  knowing  that  these  duties 
were  to  be  refunded  on  reexportation  of  the  commodities 
from  England,  he  claimed  that  the  result  would  be  that  Eng- 
lish sugars  would  be  unable  to  compete  in  foreign  markets 
with  those  of  the  Portuguese,  Dutch,  and  French  posses- 
sions."*  A  month  later,  however,  after  the  provisions  of  the 
law  were  fully  known,  Molesworth  wrote  that  his  former 
criticisms  were  based  on  a  misapprehension  and  that,  in 
his  opinion,  the  additional  duties  would  in  the  main  be 

1  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  116,  117. 

2  Nov.  14,  1685,  Howard  to  Blathwayt.  Blathwayt,  Journal  I,  f. 
184. 

'  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  84. 

*  'The  short  of  it  is/  he  wrote,  'that  Virginia  receives  a  mortal  stab, 
Barbados  and  the  Islands  fall  into  a  hectic  fever,  and  Jamaica  into  a  con- 
sumption.* 


P 


vt    > 


» 


\\' 


)\\\ 


-<  ( 


U 


164 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


shifted  to   the  consumer  and  would  not  fall  upon  the 

planter.^ 

The  opposition  from  Barbados  was  more  persistent  and 
better  organized.  On  September  14,  1865,^  the  Assembly, 
Council,  and  Deputy-Governor  of  the  colony  wrote  to  the 
Lords  of  Trade,  stating  that  the  island  was  heavily  in  debt 
and  that  the  sugar  industry  was  not  profitable.  Conse- 
quently, they  could  not  stand  the  additional  duty,  which 
they  claimed  to  know  by  woeful  experience  would  fall  upon 
the  producer  and  not  upon  the  consumer,  as  was  intended.^ 
They  also  enclosed  a  detailed  memorial  showing  the  great 
cost  of  producing  sugar  and  its  relatively  low  market  value, 
as  a  result  of  which  they  claimed  that  Barbados  was  in  a 
deplorable  state.^    Letters  were  also  sent  by  the  Assembly  to 

1  *I  find  that  the  additional  duty  on  sugar  is  much  otherwise  than  we 
apprehended.  We  believed  that  it  was  to  be  paid  on  all  imported  sugar 
without  exception ;  but,  considering  that  it  is  only  to  be  paid  on  what  is 
expended  in  England„and  that  our  exported  sugars  are  free  from  it,  I  incUne 
to  the  opmion  that  it  will  fall  chiefly  on  the  expender.'  C.  C.  1685-1688, 
p.  96. 

2  c.  c.  1685-1688,  pp.  93, 94. 

3  They  stated  that  since  the  beginning  of  the  year  sugar  had  declined  in 
price  from  135.  dd.  and  145.  to  85.  the  cwt. 

*  They  asserted  that  the  annual  cost  of  a  plantation  of  100  acres,  figuring 
interest  at  5  per  cent  on  the  capital  invested  in  the  land,  buildings,  and 
machinery,  making  allowance  for  wear  and  tear,  and  including  the  cost  of 
labor  and  running  expenses,  as  well  as  the  parochial  taxes,  amounted  to 
£745  I05.  Such  a  plantation  would  yield  yearly  only  £400  of  raw  sugar 
(figuring  the  price  at  105.  a  cwt.)  and  £140  of  nun  and  molasses.  Thus 
there  was  a  deficit  of  about  £200,  which  they  asserted  had  hitherto  been 
avoided  by  "claying"  their  sugars.  This  clayed  sugar,  they  claimed,  was 
not  worth  twice  as  much  as  muscovado  or  raw  sugar,  but  the  new  duties 
thereon  were  three  times  as  high  and  consequently  they  would  no  longer  be 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND   IMPERIAL  FINANCES     165 

William  Blathwayt,  the  influential  Secretary  of  the  Lords 
of  Trade,  to  the  Governor  of  Barbados,  Sir  Richard  Button 
—  then  in  England  answering  charges  against  him  —  and 
to  Sir  Peter  Colleton  of  the  Committee  of  Gentlemen 
Planters,  asking  their  support  for  this  address.^  About  a 
month  later,  the  Deputy-Governor  of  Barbados,  Edwyn 
Stede,  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade,  acknowledging  receipt 
of  the  King's  letter  to  the  effect  that  it  was  the  intent  that 
these  duties  should  be  paid  by  the  consumer,  but  stoutly 
maintaining  that  it  was  found  'by  experience  of  sales,  both 
here  and  in  England,  that  the  duty  falls  on  the  planter, 
and  will  continue  to  do  so  unless,  by  your  great  wisdom, 
some  means  be  found  to  moderate  it.'  ^ 

These  complaints  from  Virginia  and  Barbados  were 
referred  to  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs,  who  reported 
that  they  contained  nothing  that  they  had  not  already 
frequently  heard  from  the  London  merchants ;  that  it  was 
'  the  abundance  of  sugar  and  tobacco,  not  the  duty,  that 
brings  them  evil;'  and,  accordingly,  they  recommended  that 
no  change  should  be  made  in  the  duty  for  at  least  a  year.' 
To  this  the  Lords  of  Trade  agreed.^ 

able  to  "clay"  their  sugar.    They  then  claimed  that  the  result  would  be 
equally  disastrous  if  they  shipped  their  raw  sugar  to  England  for  sale  there, 
and  that  the  new  duties  would  still  further  reduce  the  price  of  sugar  in  Bar- 
bados from  10s.  to  75.  a  cwt.     C.  O.  31/3,  ff.  120  et  seq. 
^  C.  C.  1681-1685,  P-  95- 

*  He  added  that  the  people  were  mostly  in  debt  and  imder  great  affliction, 
in  consequence  of  a  very  poor  crop  and  the  great  mortality  among  their 
negroes  and  servants  due  to  smallpox.    Ibid.  p.  109. 

'  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  125,  127,  141,  147. 

*  Ibid,  p.  202, 


f I  !*'i 


iis 


K. 


'^,1 


'X 


i66 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


There  was  no  necessity  for  the  cumbersome  method  of 
paying  these  duties  in  order  that  they  should  be  shifted  to 
the  consumer.  As  Render  Molesworth  said,  'it  ought  to 
fall  out  so  by  natural  course  of  trade/ ^  since  these  new 
duties  were  not  imposed  on  that  portion  of  the  crops  sold 
in  foreign  markets.  It  was  the  price  in  this  international 
market  that  regulated  the  amount  received  by  the  planter 
for  his  entire  product.  The  only  way  in  which  these  duties 
could  adversely  affect  the  colonies  was  by  lessening  consump- 
tion in  England.  To  some  degree  this  must  have  been  the 
result,  but  its  extent  was  apparently  not  important.  In 
the  case  of  tobacco,  upon  which  the  new  duties  were  rela- 
tively much  higher  than  were  those  on  sugar,  they  also  led 
to  the  adulteration  of  the  article  in  England  ^  and  likewise 
probably  stimulated  smuggling,  both  of  which  reacted  un- 
favorably on  the  planter.  The  disadvantages  to  the  colo- 
nies were,  however,  sHght  in  comparison  with  the  renewal 
of  the  preferential  treatment  of  their  produce. 

These  new  taxes  produced  a  comparatively  large  revenue ; 
from  1688  to  1692  it  averaged  about  £122,000  yearly,  of 
which  £90,000  was  derived  from  the  tobacco  impost.^ 
These  duties  were  thus  most  satisfactory  from  the  financial 

1  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  96. 

'  The  stalks  or  stems,  which  weighed  about  20  per  cent  of  the  tobacco, 
were  soaked,  pressed  flat,  and  then  cut  and  mixed  with  the  leaf  tobacco. 
Brit.  Mus.,  Harieian  MSS.  1238,  f.  29. 

»  Brit.  Mus.,  Stowe  MSS.  324,  f.  64 ;  ibid.  316,  ff.  3,  4.  The  importations 
of  tobacco  into  England  at  this  time  were  from  fourteen  to  nineteen  million 
pounds  annually,  the  impost  being  paid  on  about  one-half  only,  as  the  bal- 
ance was  reexported  to  foreign  markets.  Brit.  Mus.,  Harieian  MSS.  1238, 
f.  31 J  Sloane  MSS.  1815,  f.  35;  C.  O.  5/1305,  54-56. 


J'' 
1 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES     167 

standpoint,  and  furthermore  they  were  easy  to  collect. 
It  coidd  not  reasonably  be  expected  that  so  large  a  revenue 
would  be  abandoned,  unless  it  were  clear  that  these  duties 
hampered  the  development  of  the  colonies,  especially  as 
their  produce  was  granted  a  monopoly  of  the  English  mar- 
ket. This,  of  course,  could  not  be  demonstrated.  Ever 
since  that  time  tobacco  has  been  a  most  fruitful  source  of 
income  to  the  British  Exchequer.^  The  tobacco  trade 
quickly  adjusted  itself  to  the  new  conditions,  and  Virginia 
and  Maryland  soon  forgot  about  these  new  duties.  But 
Barbados,  always  energetically  active,  continued  the  agita- 
tion and  as  those  who  represented  its  interests  in  England 
had  considerable  influence,  the  sugar  duties  were  not  con- 
tinued on  their  expiration  in  1693,  while  those  on  tobacco 
were  prolonged  and  ultimately  made  perpetual.^ 

Thus  the  English  tariffs  were  so  constructed  that  the  "^ 
most  important  of  the  colonial  products  had  a  monopoly^ 
of  the  English  market.  During  the  course  of  their  enforced 
trans-shipment  through  England,  these  enumerated  articles 
also  paid  some  duties  to  the  English  Exchequer.  On  raw 
sugar  they  amounted  to  ninepence  the  hundredweight, 
which  was  not  onerous,^  but  on  tobacco  the  duty  was  one 

*  "No  other  product  that  enters  into  commerce  is  taxed  so  heavily  as 
tobacco.  England  levies  a  tax  of  77  cents  per  pound  when  it  contains  10 
per  cent  of  moisture;  85  cents  per  pound,  when  there  is  less  than  this 
amount.  This  is  from  twelve  to  fifteen  hundred  per  cent  on  the  prices  which 
the  farmers  receive."  Shelfer,  Tobacco,  in  Am.  Econ.  Assoc.  3d  series,  V,  i, 
p.  142.  This  statement  refers  to  American  tobacco,  and  was  written  before 
1904 ;  since  then  the  duties  have  been  increased. 

^  2  W.  &  M.  sess.  2,  c.  5 ;  4  &  5  W.  &  M.  c.  15 ;  9  Anne,  c.  21. 

'  The  value  of  sugar  in  Barbados  in  1670  was  about  12s.  a  cwt. 


i!i 


t 


Hr 


l\W  ^; 


i68 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


half-penny  the  pound,  which  was  considerable  in  propor- 
tion to  the  value  of  tobacco  in  the  colonies.^  Furthermore, 
some  duties  were  retained  on  European  goods  shipped  from 
England  to  the  plantations.  In  effect,  these  were  equivalent 
to  direct  taxes  on  the  colonies;  and,  while  not  of  great  im- 
portance, they  were  not  negligible  from  a  revenue  stand- 
point. The  half-penny  on  tobacco  was  the  chief  source  of 
revenue,  and  amounted  on  an  average  to  about  £15,000 
yearly  just  prior  to  the  Revolution  of  1688/9.^  ^^  '^^l^y 
this  half  subsidy  on  sugar  was  estimated  at  £5000  a  year 
and  amounted  to  about  the  same  sum  a  decade  later.^  In 
addition  to  this  indirect  method  of  taxing  the  colonies,  Par- 
liament in  1673  had  also  imposed  duties  on  the  intercolonial 
trade.  At  the  time,  some  objection  was  made  to  this  law  on 
the  ground  that  it  violated  the  principle  of  no  taxation  with- 
out representation ;  its  purpose,  however,  was  not  to  raise 
a  revenue,  but  to  regulate  imperial  trade.  Incidentally 
thereto  it  did  produce  a  gross  income  of  about  £1000,  of 
which  the  bulk,  however,  was  used  in  its  collection.* 

In  addition  to  this  instance  of  direct  taxation  by  the  Act 
of  1673,  whose  actual  fiscal  importance  was  slight  in  com- 
parison with  its  potential  legal  significance,  some  revenue  was 

1  The  price  of  tobacco  in  Virginia  averaged  about  i\d.  the  pound. 

2  The  available  statistical  material  is  scanty  and  unreliable.  This  state- 
ment is  based  upon  a  comparative  study  of  a  niunber  of  documents,  of  which 
the  chief  are  Brit.  Mus.,  Harieian  MSS.  1238,  ff.  2,  31 ;  Sloane  MSS.  181 5, 
f.  35 ;  C.  O.  5/1305,  nos.  54-56. 

'  Cal.  Dom.  1676-1677,  p.  464;   The  Irregular  and  Disorderly  State  of 
the  Plantation-Trade,  in  Am.  Hist.  Assoc.  Report  (1892),  p.  38. 
^  See  ante,  p.  83,  and  post,  Chapter  IV. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES     169 

derived  on  other  grounds  from  colonial  sources.  The  early 
colonial  charters,  as  a  rule,  provided  that  one-fifth  of 
whatever  gold  and  silver  might  be  obtained  should  be  re- 
served to  the  Crown.  In  addition,  the  colonial  proprietors 
were  bound  by  their  letters  patent  to  make  some  annual 
acknowledgment  of  EngHsh  suzerainty.  Thus  Lord  Balti- 
more was  obliged  by  his  charter  to  deliver  every  year  at 
Windsor  Castle  "two  Indian  arrows  of  those  parts."  No 
gold  or  silver  was,  however,  found  in  the  colonies;  and  the 
picturesque  feudal  acknowledgments  were  intended  to  be 
only  symbohcally  significant  and,  besides,  they  were  generally 
ignored.^  In  addition,  the  Crown  as  such  was  also  entitled 
to  certain  rights  and  royalties.  Fines,  forfeitures,  and  es- 
cheats in  the  royal  provinces,  goods  seized  from  pirates  ^  and 
a  portion  of  what  was  recovered  from  wrecks  belonged  to  it. 
At  one  time  the  question  of  the  Crown's  share  of  wrecks 
became  very  prominent.  In  1686,  a  small  company  was 
formed  in  England  to  recover  treasure  from  wrecks,  and 
William  Phipps  was  sent  by  it  to  try  his  luck  with  a 
sunken  Spanish  ship  off  Hispaniola.  The  following  year,  the 
expedition  returned  to  England  with  about  £250,000,  of 
which  the  Crown  received  £20,872  in  settlement  of  its  one- 
tenth  share.^    The  news  of  this  vast  treasure-trove  spread 

1  Blathwayt,  Journal  II,  ff.  44-53.  Among  the  receipts  of  the  Exchequer, 
however,  are  £66  for  1682-1683,  £40  for  1683-1684,  and  £93  for  1685-1686, 
as  rent  of  Carolina.    W.  R.  Scott,  Joint-Stock  Companies  III,  pp.  532,  533. 

2  C.  O.  1/61,  42;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  10,  II,  IS,  29,  36,  47,  122,  25s, 
340. 

'  W.  R.  Scott,  Jomt-Stock  Companies  II,  pp.  485,  486 ;  III,  pp.  536- 
539. 


r  Ji 


I' 


170 


THE   OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


II  ^t^^' 


liMi 


m\ 


quickly  in  America,  and  from  nearly  all  the  colonies  vessels 
flocked  to  the  scene  of  action.  A  considerable  amount  of 
treasure  was  recovered,  £50,000  being  brought  to  the  Ber- 
mudas alone.  Acting  upon  the  precedent  estabUshed  in 
England,  the  various  colonial  governors  demanded  one- 
tenth  of  this  treasure  as  the  Crown's  share.  While  they 
were  engaged  in  a  largely  unsuccessful  attempt  to  collect 
these  dues,  orders  were  received  from  England  that  pay- 
ment of  one-half  of  what  was  secured  by  the  wreckers  should 
be  made  to  the  Crown.  This  aroused  a  storm  of  protest; 
and,  as  it  was  impossible  to  enforce  this  claim,  in  1688  the 
government  receded  from  its  untenable  position  and  in- 
structed the  Governors  to  demand  only  one-tenth  as  the 
Crown's  share. ^  Searching  for  wrecked  treasure  was,  how- 
ever, in  the  long  run  a  very  precarious  and  speculative  occu- 
pation, and  naturally  but  little  income  was  derived  by  the 
Crown  from  this  source. 

As  in  the  case  of  wrecks,  a  certain  proportion  of  prizes  of  war 
taken  at  sea  was  legally  due  to  the  King,  and  another  share 
also  to  the  Lord  High  Admiral.  These  were  the  Crown's 
fifteenths  and  the  Admiralty's  tenths,^  but  even  in  Jamaica, 
which  was  the  centre  of  privateering,  these  dues  were  *but 
a  small  matter.'  ^  In  addition,  one-third  or  one-half  —  de- 
pending upon  the  nature  of  the  case  —  of  all  forfeitures  for 

iBlathwayt,  Journal  I,  ff.  244-248;  C.  O.  1/60,  88;  Goodrick,  Ran- 
dolph VI,  pp.  229,  240,  249;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  391-393,  421,  4SS» 
480,  489-494,  505,  506,  508,  509,  518,  519,  524,  529,  530,  538,  543, 
551,  560. 

2  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1138;  ibid.  1669-1674,  pp.  145-147. 

*  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  95. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES     171 

violations  of  the  Acts  of  Trade  and  Navigation  was  appor- 
tioned to  the  Crown,  and  under  the  charter  of  the  Royal 
African  Company  the  King  was  also  entitled  to  one-half 
of  all  condemnations  for  violation  of  this  Company's  trade 
monopoly.^  In  general,  this  miscellaneous  revenue  was  of 
but  slight  importance  and  besides  it  was,  as  a  rule,  devoted 
to  colonial  purposes.^  Only  in  Barbados  was  this  "casual 
revenue,"  as  it  was  there  called,  of  any  fiscal  importance. 
Here  a  special  officer,  who  was  also  the  Collector  of  the  Cus- 
toms, was  entrusted  with  its  collection;  and,  in  1687,  £2500 
was  remitted  to  England,  representing  the  proceeds  of  this 
revenue  for  the  preceding  four  years.^ 

In  addition  to  these  rights  and  royalties,  as  successor  to 
some  of  the  colonial  proprietors,  the  Crown  was  entitled 
to  the  revenue  that  would  have  accrued  to  them  as  lords 
of  their  domains.  In  Virginia  and  in  the  Caribbee  Islands, 
especially,  these  rights  were  very  important.  In  1627,  a 
few  years  after  some  small  English  settlements  had  been 
founded  in  Barbados  and  in  St.  Kitts,  the  most  important 
of  the  West  Indian  islands,  not  colonized  by  Spain,  were 
granted  by  charter  to  James  Hay,  first  Earl  of  Carlisle. 
Their  economic  development  was  at  the  outset  comparatively 

*  Blathwayt,  Journal  I,  ff.  67,  79,  295.  The  same  applied  to  forfeitures 
for  violations  of  the  monopoly  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

*  The  casual  revenue  in  Jamaica  arising  from  fines,  forfeitures,  escheats, 
etc.,  and  also  that  from  the  quit-rents,  was  applied  to  the  uses  of  the  col- 
ony.   Blathwayt,  Journal  I,  ff.  378-381. 

'In  1682,  Edwyn  Stede  was  appointed  receiver  of  the  rents,  revenues, 
prizes,  fines,  escheats,  forfeitures,  etc.y  arising  to  the  Crown  in  Barbados. 
Ibid.  I,  ff.  108,  109,  258,  378-381. 


• 


! 


172 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


I    i 


^ 


slow,  as  the  chief  product  was  tobacco,  in  which  they  were 
at  a  considerable  disadvantage  in  competing  with  Virginia.^ 
The  introduction  of  the  sugar-cane  during  the  period  of  the 
Civil  War,  however,  led  to  an  era  of  phenomenal  growth 
and  prosperity,  especially  in  Barbados,  which  in  a  few  years 
became  by  far  the  richest  of  the  EngUsh  colonies.^  "The 
like  Improvemf,^'  a  contemporary  said,  "was  neuer  made 
by  any  people  vnder  the  Sonne/'  ^ 

During  the  Civil  War  in  England,  the  proprietary  rights 
of  the  royalist  Earl  of  CarUsle,  son  of  the  original  patentee, 
were  sequestrated,  but  in  1645,  ^^  ^^^  submission  to  Parlia- 
ment, they  were  restored.  In  the  same  year,  these  islands 
were  decreed  in  chancery  to  the  creditors  of  the  spendthrift 
first  Earl  in  payment  of  debts  amounting  to  £37,000.  Two 
years  later,  in  1647,  the  proprietor  leased  his  rights,  subject 
to  these  claims  of  his  father's  creditors,  for  twenty-one 
years  to  Francis,  Lord  Willoughby  of  Parham.^  On  the 
execution  of  Charles  I  in  1649,  Barbados  abandoned  its  at- 
tempt to  preserve  a  neutral  attitude  toward  the  struggle  in 

1  "At  the  beginning  all  the  foreign  Inhabitants  of  the  Caribbies  apply^d 
themselves  wholly  to  the  culture  of  Tobacco,  whereby  they  made  a  shift 
to  get  a  competent  Uvelihood;  but  afterwards  the  abundance  that  was 
made  bringing  down  the  price  of  it,  they  have  in  several  places  employ'd 
themselves  in  the  planting  of  Sugar-canes,  Ginger,  and  Indico."  The 
History  of  Barbados,  S*^  Christophers,  etc.,  trans,  by  J.  Davies  (London, 
1666),  p.  187.     Cf.  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  264,  265. 

2  The  sugar-cane  was  said  to  have  been  originally  introduced  into  Bar- 
bados from  Brazil  by  one  Peeter  B rower  of  North  Holland,  but  came  to  no 
perfection  until  1645.    Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  2662,  ff.  54^,  70. 

'  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2543,  f.  123. 
*  Cal.  Treas.  Papers,  1 557-1696,  p.  12. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES     173 

England  and  openly  proclaimed  the  rights  of  his  son,  the 
future  Charles  II.  But  in  1652,  after  a  stout  resistance,  the 
island  was  obliged  to  surrender  to  a  strong  parhamentary 
force.  The  proprietary  system  of  Lord  Willoughby  was 
thereupon  extinguished  and  a  parliamentary  Governor  was 
appointed.  The  same  course  of  events  followed  in  the 
other  West  Indian  colonies. 

On  the  restoration  of  the  monarchy  in  England,  the  ques- 
tion naturally  arose  what  should  be  done  with  these  islands. 
In  England,  the  lands  confiscated  during  the  Interregnum 
were  restored  to  their  original  owners.  Should  the  same 
policy  be  adopted  towards  the  proprietary  rights  in  the 
West  Indies?  In  favor  of  restitution  were  the  Earl  of 
CarHsle,  as  proprietor,  and  Lord  Willoughby,  the  lease- 
holder, and  naturally  also  the  creditors  of  the  original  pat- 
entee. Opposed  to  them  were  the  planters  and  colonists, 
and  also  the  merchants  engaged  in  trading  to  the  sugar 

islands.^ 

In  the  early  summer  of  1660,  Charles  II  recognized  the 
rights  of  Lord  Willoughby  imder  the  Carlisle  patent  of  1627, 
and  directed  the  inhabitants  of  the  West  Indies  to  }deld 
obedience  to  his  government.^  This  was  merely  a  pro- 
visional disposition  of  the  matter,  and  in  the  meanwhile 
the  government  continued  to  investigate  the  case  and  to 
give  hearings  to  the  interested  parties.^    The  Committee  of 


*  C.  C.  1574-1660,  p.  482. 

2  Ibid.  p.  483 ;  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  267. 
»  C.  O.  1/14,  20;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  296,  297;  C.  C.  1574-1660,  pp.  483, 
484,  486,  488. 


>\\\ 


IliF 


/  m 


■\ 


I  Ho 


Mfil 


>f|: 


I  1 

I  f 


m') 


174 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


the  Privy  Council  reported,  however,  on  August  20,  1660, 
that  Lord  Willoughby  should  be  restored  to  the  rights  of 
which  he  had  been  dispossessed  by  the  *  illegal  power  of 
Cromwell.'^  This  report  was  approved,  and  Willoughby 
proceeded  successfully  to  reestablish  the  proprietary  au- 
thority in  Barbados  and  in  the  Leeward  Islands.^ 

But  those  opposed  to  this  settlement  continued  to  agi- 
tate and  succeeded  in  having  the  question  reopened.  They 
were  aided  by  the  fact  that  it  was  already  recognized 
that  these  semi-feudal  proprietary  colonies  were  difficult 
to  manage,  and  that  from  the  imperial  standpoint  it  would 
be  advisable  to  convert  them  into  crown  colonies  imder  the 
immediate  control  of  the  English  government.^  Early  in 
1661,  the  Privy  Council  ordered  all  who  pretended  to  any 
interest  in  or  title  to  the  Caribbee  Islands  to  deliver  to  the 
Attorney-General  "their  severall  and  respective  Proprie- 
tyes"  and  to  attend  the  board  with  their  counsel.'*  As  a 
result  of  this  reexamination  of  the  case,  the  decision  of 
the  preceding  year  was  reversed;  and  on  March  28,  1661, 

^  C.  C.  1 574-1660,  p.  489. 

'  Ibid.  pp.  490,  494,  496;  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  S.  305,  329. 

*  In  his  overtures  advising  the  creation  of  a  council  for  foreign  plan- 
tations, Thomas  Povey  urged  that  "such  Collonies,  as  are  the  Proprietie 
of  perticular  Persons,  or  of  Corporations  may  bee  reduced  as  neare  as 
can  bee  to  the  Same  Method  and  Proportion  with  the  rest ;  with  as  Httle 
Dissatisfaction  or  Iniurie  to  the  Persons  concerned,  as  may  be."  Brit. 
Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  273.  In  a  memorial  of  the  same  time,  such 
grants  as  those  of  Charles  I  to  Carlisle  were  opposed.  It  was  stated 
therein  that  Charles  II  had  been  surprised  into  reinstating  Willoughby,  and 
he  was  urged  to  appoint  a  Governor  himself.  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS. 
2543,  f.  123. 

^  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  304,  305 ;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  36. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES     175 

Sir  WiUiam  Morice,  "his  Majesties  Principall  Secretary 
of  State,''  was  ordered  to  notify  Barbados  "that  the  pro- 
prietors-ship of  the  said  Island  is  invested  in  his  Majes- 
tie."  ^  Shortly  thereafter.  Lord  Willoughby  was  appointed 
Governor  of  the  colony  by  the  Crown.^ 

The  revocation  of  the  Carlisle  charter  abolished  only  the 
powers  of  government  granted  therein,  but  left  intact  the 
patentee's  property  rights  and  the  revenue  to  which  he 
was  entitled  as  grantor  of  the  lands.  There  were  diverse 
claims  on  this  revenue,  and  only  in  1663,  after  prolonged 
negotiations,  was  this  matter  definitely  settled.  It  was 
then  provided^  that  the  annual  profits  arising  to  the 
Crown  from  the  Caribbee  Islands  should  be  divided  into 
two  equal  parts,  of  which  one  should  go  to  Lord  Wil- 
loughby during  the  six  remaining  years  of  his  lease,  but 
thereafter  should  "be  entirely  reserved  in  his  Majesties 
dispose  towards  the  support  of  the  Government  of  the 
said  Islands,  and  to  such  other  purposes  as  his  Majes- 
tie  shall  please  to  assigne  the  same."  The  second  half 
was  charged  with  the  payment  of  two  annuities ;  a  tem- 
porary one  of  £500  to  the  Earl  of  Marlborough,  whose 
grandfather  had  had  a  grant  covering  Barbados  prior  to 
that  of  Carlisle,^  and  a  perpetual  one  of  £1000  to  the  Earl 
of  Kinnoul,  who  had  succeeded  to  the  Earl  of  Carlisle's 

*  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  305, 306. 

2  C.  C.  i66i-i668,  nos.  80,  83. 

'  Cal.  Treas.  Papers,  1557-1696,  pp.  12-14;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  362-365; 
C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  482 ;  Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  2441,  ff.  7,  8.  Cf.  also 
C.  C.  1699,  P-  588. 

*  The  annuity  was  transferred  in  1665.    C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1432. 


m 


'I 


176 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


.1; 


Mi 


i  I 


Hi  I 


rights.^  After  the  payment  of  these  two  annuities,  the  bal- 
ance of  this  second  half  of  the  revenue  was  to  go  to  the  credi- 
tors of  the  first  Earl  of  CarHsle,  who  had  not  received  "the 
least  part  of  their  Debts  or  Interest  since  his  death."  They, 
in  return,  agreed  to  cancel  one-third  of  the  amount  due  them, 
which  reduced  their  claims  to  about  £25,000.  After  the 
payment  of  this  indebtedness,  the  "Second  Moyety ''  of  this 
revenue  was  also  to  revert  to  the  Crown.  Thus,  ultimately 
the  entire  revenue,  subject  only  to  the  Kinnoul  annuity 
of  £1000,  would  be  at  the  disposal  of  the  King. 

Having  thus  apportioned  the  prospective  income  arising 
from  the  Caribbee  Islands,  it  now  remained  to  estabhsh  a  per- 
manent revenue  in  the  place  of  the  proprietary  dues.  With 
this  object  in  view,  the  royal  Governor,  Lord  Willoughby, 
who  was  departing  for  the  West  Indies,  received  careful 
instructions  from  the  government.  He  was  ordered  to 
make  these  colonies  "  sensible  that  some  Retume  of  Profitt, 
as  well  as  Duty  ought  to  be  made  Vs  for  our  continuall  and 
unwearied  care  of  them,"  and  he  was  authorized,  if  neces- 
sary, to  employ  part  of  the  anticipated  revenue  in  fortify- 
ing the  colonies.^ 

Barbados  was  kept  informed  of  the  course  of  these  pro- 
tracted negotiations  in  England,  and,  while  more  than  satis- 
fied with  the  definite  aboHtion  of  the  proprietary  charter, 
was  naturally  anxious  to  make  the  best  terms  possible  as 
regards  the  revenue  that  should  be  paid  to  the  Crown. 

1  Kinnoul  was  to  receive  £500  yearly  up  to  1670  and  thereafter  £1000 
in  perpetuity.    Cf.  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  Nov.  13,  1676. 

2  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  357,  358. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  .FINANCES    177 

During  the  agitation  for  the  revocation  of  the  charter,  the 
colony  stated  its  willingness  to  pay  to  the  King  as  much  as 
had  formerly  been  paid  to  the  Earl  of  CarHsle,  and  at  this 
time  some  in  the  island  proposed  an  export  duty  of  four 
per  cent.^  But  in  the  summer  of  1661,  the  President  of  the 
Coimcil  and  the  Council  proposed  to  the  Assembly  to  peti- 
tion the  King  against  this  four  per  cent  proposition  and 
"  to  beseech  his  Majesty  that  hee  will  not  put  vs  into  a  worse 
condition  then  formerly  wee  were  in  (wee  growing  poorer 
and  our  ground  every  day  decaying)  but  that  we  may  hold 
our  lands  as  heretofore  we  did"  on  free  and  common  socage 
tenure,  paying  the  impost  of  two  and  four  per  cent,  as  was 
agreed  between  the  Assembly  and  the  proprietor.  The 
Assembly,  while  approving,  would  not  concur,  as  it  did 
not  consider  a  time,  when  the  King's  commands  were  daily 
expected,  appropriate  for  such  a  petition.^  Accordingly, 
on  July  10,  1 66 1,  the  President  and  Council  wrote  in  their 

^  C.  O.  1/15,  52;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  83. 

2  C.  O.  i/is,  69;  C.  O.  31/1,  53;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  127.  The  As- 
sembly was  dissolved,  and  in  a  declaration  to  the  people  giving  the  reasons 
for  this  dissolution,  the  President  and  Council  stated  that  a  letter  had  re- 
cently been  received  from  Sir  James  Drax  to  the  effect  that  efforts  were  being 
made  to  induce  the  King  to  lay  a  tax  on  Barbados,  "itt  being  not  only  the 
maintenance  of  the  Government  and  all  other  publique  charge  but  the  pay- 
ing of  four  out  of  Every  Hundred  of  all  Comodityes  made  and  transported 
to  his  Ma*^®,"  which  it  was  claimed  would  produce  £25,000  yearly.  The 
declaration  stated  that  it  was  proposed  to  estabhsh  this  tax  by  Act  of 
Parliament,  and  urged  quick  action,  for,  if  it  were  thus  enacted,  "it  would  bee 
hard  getting  of  it  repealed."  Nothing  was  said  about  the  illegaHty  of  such 
a  parUamentary  tax.  Journal  of  Barbados  Council,  1660-1686:  C.  O. 
31/1,  ff.  56,  57.  The  following  year  the  colony,  however,  petitioned  "  that 
noe  tax  bee  layd  without  the  consent  of  the  freeholders."     Ibid.  ff.  76,  77. 

N 


.* 


4 


178 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Ml 


mi 


own  names  only  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  saying  that  they 
feared  that  the  wealth  of  the  colony  had  been  grossly  exag- 
gerated and  that  proposals  had  been  made  to  raise  taxes 
greater  than  the  people  could  bear.  They  therefore  prayed 
the  King  not  to  impose  the  proposed  four  per  cent  tax  and 
begged  that  they  might  not  be  obUged  to  pay  any  more 
than  they  had  formerly  done  to  the  proprietor.^ 

The  tactical  weakness  of  Barbados  in  the  approaching 
contest  lay  in  the  imcertainty  of  the  land  titles  of  many  of 
the  planters.  In  nimierous  cases  they  were  defective  and 
of  doubtful  legaHty.  Above  all  things  the  colony  desired 
that  this  be  rectified,  and  that  the  existing  grants  should  be 
confirmed.  In  1662,  they  had  petitioned  the  King  that 
ParHament  should  pass  a  law  removing  all  uncertainty 
from  their  land  titles.^  With  this  powerful  and  convincing 
argument  at  his  disposal,^  Willoughby  arrived  in  Barbados  in 
the  midsummer  of  1663  with  the  object  of  creating  the  de- 
sired revenue  and  of  estabhshing  crown  government  in  the 
colony.  The  colonial  executive  had  hitherto  been  appointed 
by  him  as  leaseholder  under  the  charter,  and  the  Assembly 

iC.  O.  1/15,  70;  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,5.  305  et  seq.; 
C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  129. 

2  They  wanted  "Tenure  in  Soccage  to  bee  held  of  the  King  &c  paying 
Such  an  acknowledgem*  as  the  Governor  Counsell  and  Assembly  shall 
agree  vnto."    C.  0.  31/1,  76,  77. 

»  Article  xi  of  Willoughby's  instructions  reads :  "  Since  it  seemes  requisite, 
that  the  Occupiers  and  Possessors  of  Land  need  further  Confirmation  from 
Vs,  We  giue  you  full  Power  as  from  Vs,  further  to  graunt  and  confirme  the 
same  for  such  Consideration,  and  under  such  Covenants,  Conditions  and 
Reservations,  as  betweene  you  and  the  respectiue  Parties  shall  be  agreed 
on."    P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  359. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES     179 

had  been  convened  on  the  same  authority.  Summoning 
this  proprietary  Assembly,  Willoughby  laid  before  it  his 
instructions,  in  order,  as  he  wrote,  *  to  avoid  the  delay  of 
calling  together  a  new  one,  which  might  be  done  if  the  pres- 
ent Assembly  should  not  answer  his  Majesty's  expectations.'  ^ 
Thanks  to  his  popularity  in  the  island  and  by  dint  of  great 
exertions,  Willoughby  ^  induced  this  Assembly  in  September 
of  1663  to  pass  the  famous  four  and  a  half  per  cent  export 
duty  Act,  which  played  a  most  prominent  part  in  the  future 
relations  of  the  colony  and  England.^    In  the  spring  of 

1  C.  O.  1/17,  78;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  561. 

2  On  Aug.  25,  1663,  Governor  Willoughby  addressed  the  Council  and 
Assembly  and  said  that  Charles  II  "had  been  at  very  great  charge  in  pur- 
chasing to  himself e"  the  Earl  of  CarKsle's  patent,  and  that  "although  hee  had 
been  offered  in  England  from  some  Gentlemen  very  large  Sumes  of  money 
for  his  Revenue"  here,  yet  he  had  refused  it  and  to  show  his  good  will  to 
the  colony  had  left  it  to  them  to  do  what  was  requisite.  C.  O.  31/1,  ff.  80,  81. 

'  There  are  two  accounts  available  of  what  happened  in  Barbados. 
One  stated  that,  when  Willoughby  arrived  in  Barbados,  he  published  his 
royal  commission  as  Governor  and  proclaimed  that  all  powers  derived 
from  CarKsle's  patent  were  null  and  void.  Despite  this,  he  siunmoned  the 
old  Assembly  that  had  been  elected  under  this  patent.  This  body  at  first 
refused  to  act  as  an  assembly,  but  being  threatened  and  told  that  what 
they  did  would  have  no  validity,  but  would  merely  be  used  as  an  argument 
with  the  legal  Assembly  to  be  convened  subsequently,  they  were  prevailed 
upon  to  pass  the  4§  percent  Act.  Brit.  Mus.,  Stowe  MSS.  324,  ff.  4  et  seq.; 
C.  O.  1/22,  20;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1679.  At  the  time  of  the  passage 
of  the  law,  William  Povey  wrote  to  his  influential  brother,  Thomas,  in 
England,  that  Willoughby's  "former  just  affable  &  noble  Governm^  amongst 
these  people"  had  won  their  affections  and  that  no  other  person  would 
have  pleased  them.  He  was  able  to  secure  the  4^  per  cent  Act,  which  may 
be  thought  a  small  matter  in  England,  but  is  very  considerable  for  this 
poor  island  that  is  still  deeply  in  debt.  "Indeed  his  LordPP  hath  taken  a 
very  greate  deale  of  paines  in  driueing  this  bargain  for  he  hath  been  up 
early  &  downe  late  in  advizeing  &  considering  how  to  make  out  his  Ma*'^ 


•t'i'i 


mM 


f! 


Ml! 

I 


»  ! 


mm 


i8o 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


the  following  year,  the  four  Leeward  Islands  —  St.  Kitts, 
Nevis,  Montserrat,  and  Antigua  —  followed  suit  and  passed 
similar  laws.  In  1665,^  these  five  measures  were  confirmed 
by  an  Order  in  Council,  and  thus  could  not  be  repealed  either 
by  the  colonial  legislatures  or  by  the  Crown  separately. 

The  wording  of  the  Barbados  law  ^  was  somewhat  ambigu- 
ous, and  its  conflicting  interpretations  led  to  prolonged  fric- 
tion between  the  colony  and  England.  The  Act  first  recited 
that  Charles  I  had  granted  the  island  to  Carlisle,  but  that 
the  reigning  King  had  acquired  these  proprietary  rights 
and  had  appointed  Willoughby  as  Governor  with  full  power 
to  assure  to  the  people  all  their  lands.  It  then  stated  that 
many  planters  had  lost  the  proprietary  deeds,  grants,  and 
warrants  for  their  land,  and  that  many  were  in  quiet  pos- 
session without  being  able  to  prove  their  titles.  For  the 
"quieting"  these  possessions,  and  as  a  remedy  for  the  oner- 
ous dues  formerly  paid  to  the  proprietor,'  it  was  accordingly 
enacted  that  all  those  owning  land  according  to  the  laws 

intrest  against  y®  Allegations  of  y®  Planter,  he  hath  spent  three  weekes 
in  debate  with  y®  Assembly,  vntill  himselfe  &  they  were  allmost  tired,  y® 
result  at  Last  is  y*  all  Comodities  of  y®  growth  of  this  Island  shall"  pay  4^ 
per  cent.    Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  383. 

1  C.  O.  29/1,  ff.  122,  147 ;  C.  O.  324/1,  ff.  285-287 ;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no. 
981 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  396. 

*  C.  O.  29/1,  ff.  47-50;  C.  O.  30/1  (Acts  of  Barbados,  1643-1672),  pp. 

55-57- 

3  The  law  stated  that  "the  acknowledgment  of  forty  pounds  of  Cotton 
per  head,  and  other  taxes  and  compositions  formerly  raised  to  the  Earl  of 
Carlisle  was  held  very  heavy."  In  1684,  it  was  stated  that  the  freeholders 
formerly  held  their  lands  of  Carhsle  under  the  acknowledgment  of  40 
lbs.  of  cotton  per  poll,  and  since  then  from  the  Crown  on  a  free  and 
common  socage  tenure.    Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  2441,  ff.  11,  12. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM   AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES     181 

and  customs  of  Barbados  should  have  their  titles  confirmed 
and  made  valid,  and  that  all  arrears  of  the  proprietary  dues 
and  all  such  taxes  in  the  future  should  be  void,  and  that 
the  lands  should  be  held  in  free  and  common  socage.  The 
law  then  stated  that  nothing  conduced  more  to  the  peace 
and  prosperity  of  any  place .  than  the  fact  that  the  public 
revenue  was  in  some  proportion  to  "the  pubKc  charges  and 
expences;  and  also  well  weighing  the  great  charges  that 
there  must  be  of  necessity,  in  the  maintaining  the  honour 
and  dignity  of  His  Majesty's  Authority  here;  the  public 
meetings  of  the  Council;  the  reparation  of  the  Forts;  the 
building  a  Session's  house  and  a  Prison ;  and  all  other  pub- 
lic charges  incumbent  on  the  Government,"  granted  to  the 
Crown  an  export  duty  of  four  and  a  half  per  cent  on  all 
dead  produce  of  the  island. 

The  exact  intention  of  the  lawmakers  is  not  explicitly 
stated,  nor  is  it  clearly  implied.  The  colony  held  that  the 
entire  revenue  derived  from  these  duties  should  be  solely 
appropriated  to  the  public  services  of  the  island  enumer- 
ated in  the  Act,  and  that,  only  in  case  of  a  deficiency,  should 
they  be  obhged  to  impose  additional  taxes.  This  view  was 
consistently  held  by  Barbados  until,  after  one  hundred  and 
seventy-five  years  of  incessant  wrangling,  the  law  was  ulti- 
mately repealed.^  The  English  government  claimed  that 
the  revenue  was  granted  in  return  for  the  confirmation  of 

In  the  edition  of  the  Barbados  laws  used,  the  editor  says  that  this  revenue 
was  never  appUed  to  the  purposes  for  which  it  had  been  granted,  except  in 
so  far  as  the  Governor's  "EngUsh  salary"  of  £2000  was  paid  out  of  it. 
C.  0.  30/1,  p.  58. 


l82 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


l! 


{! 


^     * 


ill 


I 
I 


11 


the  existing  land  titles  and  the  aboUtion  of  all  proprietary 
dues ;  ^  that  it  belonged  to  the  Crown,  as  successor  to  the 
proprietor,  subject  of  course  to  the  settlement  made  in 
1663,  but  that  otherwise  it  could  be  disposed  of  as  it  saw 
fit.    The  EngHsh  government  held  that  the  ordinary  public 
expenses  of  the  colony,  except  the  salary  of  the  royal  Gov- 
ernor, should  be  met  by  other  taxes  raised  by  the  colony, 
and  that  this  revenue  should  be  used  only  to  help  the  colony 
in  special  emergencies.    Already  in  1663,  Willoughby  had 
been  instructed,  if  necessary,  to  apply  part  of  this  revenue 
towards    fortifymg    the    island.    The    contention    of    the 
EngHsh  government  derives  some  indirect   support  from 
the  fact  that  the  four  Acts  passed  in  1664  in  the  Leeward 
Islands  exphcitly  stated  that  the  revenue  was  granted  by 
them  in  return  for  the  confirmation  of  their  estates  and  the 
aboUtion  of  the  proprietary  dues.^    On  the  other  hand, 
from  virtually  the  very  outset,  Barbados  repudiated  this 
interpretation  and  insisted  upon  its  own  construction  of  the 
law.    Its  very  ambiguity  was  probably  a  direct  result  of 
the  conflicting  and  not  clearly  expressed  aims  of  Governor 
Willoughby  and  the  Assembly  which  passed  it.    Apparently, 
neither  Willoughby  nor  the  legislature  was  perfectly  in- 
genuous, and  at  the  time  each  accepted  the  biU,  just  because 
it  was  susceptible  of  these  divergent  interpretations  in  har- 
mony with  their  respective  distinct  purposes. 

an  one  of  Williamson's  note-books  is  a  memorandum  to  the  effect  that 
WiUoughby  had  secured  this  revenue  '  on  condition  that  all  the  planters, 
&c.,  should  hold  thenceforth  aU  their  lands  in  free  soccage.'    C.  C.  1675- 

1676,  p.  155- 

2  C.  O.  324/1,  ff.  295,  302,  310,  318. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES     183 

Willoughby  soon  foimd  himself  in  grave  diificulties  over 
this  revenue.  On  the  one  side,  he  was  importimed  by  the 
long-suffering  creditors  of  Carlisle  who  clamored  for  their 
share ;  ^  on  the  other,  he  was  beset  by  the  colony,  which 
claimed  that  the  revenue  should  be  entirely  devoted  to  its 
pubKc  services.  The  Governor's  troubles  were  greatly  in- 
tensified in  1665  by  the  war  with  the  Dutch.  The  EngHsh 
West  Indies,  especially  the  Leeward  Islands,  which  still  were 
joined  with  Barbados  in  one  government,  were  inadequately 
fortified  and  also  poorly  protected  by  the  Enghsh  navy, 
and  hence  suffered  severely  from  the  French,  who  as  allies 
of  the  Dutch  had  been  drawn  into  the  war.  While  recog- 
nizing the  urgent  necessity  of  strengthening  the  island's 
own  fortifications,  the  Barbados  Assembly  refused  to  pass 
a  satisfactory  measure  for  raising  the  needed  funds,^  claim- 
ing that  this  should  be  provided  for  out  of  the  four  and  a 
half  per  cent  revenue.^ 

1  These  creditors  claimed  that  Willoughby  had  converted  their  share  of 
the  revenue  to  his  own  uses.  This  the  Governor  vigorously  denied  and 
asked  that  his  accounts  be  audited  in  England.  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no. 
992.  In  1665,  the  English  government  appointed  a  special  official  to  re- 
ceive the  share  allotted  to  the  creditors.    P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  394-396,  414. 

2  In  his  letter  of  July  5,  1665,  Willoughby  begged  the  King  to  allow  him 
to  use  the  4^  per  cent  revenue  for  building  forts  and  maintaining  men  to 
defend  them,  as  he  had  no  other  means  of  meeting  these  expenses.  C.  O. 
1/19,  77 ;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1017. 

*  Finally,  in  1666,  the  Assembly  passed  a  bill  for  raising  a  large  amotmt 
of  sugar  *  to  be  disposed  of  by  three  of  their  own  members  .  .  .  excluding 
the  Governor  and  Council  from  all  knowledge  of  the  uses  of  this  great  levy.* 
This  bill  WiUoughby  refused  to  pass.  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1185.  See 
also  Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  2662,  ff.  57  et  seq.  of  the  reversed  side  of  the 
voliune,  and  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  1017,  1018,  1121,  1167.    In  1667,  how- 


i84 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


In  this  emergency,  Willoughby,  like  most  men  of  strong 
character  and  marked  ability,  would  not  allow  himself  to  be 
fettered  by  his  instructions,  but  used  the  entire  four  and  a 
half  per  cent  revenue  for  aggressive  and  defensive  measures 
against  the  aUied  enemy.  Unfortunately  in  1666,  while  en- 
gaged in  an  expedition  for  the  recovery  of  St.  Kitts,  Wil- 
loughby's  vessel  was  wrecked  by  a  hurricane,  and  he  himself 
was  drowned.^ 

His  brother  William  succeeded  to  the  barony  and  to  the 
government  of  the  Caribbee  Islands.    At  this  time  the  four 
and  a  half  per  cent  revenue  amounted  to  about  £6000 
yearly,^  and  as  William,  Lord  Willoughby,  wrote  to  the  Privy 
Council  in  1667,  it  had  been  pledged  by  his  predecessor  for 
materials  for  this  war  for  some  years  to  come,  despite  the 
fact  that  it  had  been  found  insufficient  to  meet  'the  exces- 
sive charge'  of  supplying  the  fleet  and  maintaining  the 
regiment  sent  from  England.     'So  that,'  he  continued,  'un- 
less his  Majesty  issue  satisfaction  from  his  own  exchequer,' 
.he  knew  not  where  the  necessary  funds  could  be  obtained, 
as  the  colony  had  already  contributed  very  Uberally.^    Soon 
thereafter,  however,  the  Treaty  of  Breda  of  1667  restored 
peace  and  did  away  with  the  necessity  of  most  of  this  heavy 
expenditure.    But  the  EngHsh  regiment,  that  of  Sir  Tobias 
Bridge,  was  continued  in  the  West  Indies,  and  as  during  the 
war  it  was  again  ordered  that  it  be  paid  out  of  the  four  and 

ever,  Barbados  made  a  large  grant  to  fit  out  an  expedition  for  the  relief  of 
the  Leeward  Islands.    C.  C.  i66i-i668,  nos.  1565,  1576. 

^  Ibid.  nos.  1330-1333. 

^  Ibid.  no.  1633. 

'  Ihid.  no.  1648. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND   IMPERIAL  FINANCES     185 

a  half  per  cent  revenue.*  Even  for  this  purpose  the  revenue 
was  hopelessly  inadequate.^  The  accounts  at  this  time  were 
in  the  greatest  confusion,^  and  the  revenue  was  heavily  in 
debt ;  *  the  creditors  of  the  Earl  of  Carlisle  had  so  far  re- 
ceived nothing,^  and  the  annuities  granted  to  the  successors 
of  the  original  proprietors  of  the  islands  had  not  been  paid.^ 
Thus  the  arrangement  made  in  1663  had  not  been  carried 
out  in  any  particular."^  On  the  other  hand,  in  practice  at 
least,  the  English  government  had  been  forced  to  grant  the 
colony's  demand,  for  virtually  the  entire  revenue  was  de- 
voted to  its  defence.  Barbados  was,  however,  far  from  sat- 
isfied and  continued  its  complaints.^ 

1  It  was  to  be  paid  out  of  that  part  of  the  revenue  "which  is  designed  to 
be  employed  for  the  support  of  the  Government  of  that  Island."  P.  C.  Cal* 
I,  pp.  470,  477,  480-482.    On  this  subject,  see  also  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  634. 

2  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1854;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  57,  S8. 

3  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1803 ;   P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  492,  493 ;   Cal.  Treas. 

Books,  1669-1672,  pp.  153,  154- 

*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1836;  Cal.  Treas.  Papers,  1557-1696,  pp.  12-14; 
Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1669-167 2,  pp.  443,  1059,  1060,  io77- 

5  In  1665,  Willoughby  stated  that  part  of  this  revenue  had  been  paid 
to  the  creditors,  but  they  denied  this.  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  992 ;  P.  C.  Cal. 
I,  pp.  394-396.  In  1668,  the  creditors  complained  that  they  had  not  re- 
ceived any  part  of  the  sum  due  them  and  that  their  representative  had 
not  been  admitted  as  Comptroller  of  the  Customs,  as  had  been  ordered. 
P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  394-396,  450,  451 ;  Cal.  Treas.  Papers,  1557-1696,  pp. 
12-14. 

«  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  539,  540;  Cal.  Treas.  Papers,  1557-1696,  pp.  12-14- 

7  In  1668,  Willoughby  wrote  to  the  King  that  he  would  be  able  to  see 
by  the  accounts  sent  home  that  this  revenue  '  is  not  sufficient  to  do  all  things, 
and  that  as  yet  the  Governor  has  had  nothing  towards  his  support.'  C.  C. 
1661-1668,  no.  1801. 

» In  1668,  the  representatives  of  Barbados  set  forth  the  heavy  burden 
of  this  tax,  'imposed  by  an  assembly  illegally  convened,'  and  prayed  that 


\ 


ir 


i  ' 


M 


i86 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


In  1670,  the  four  and  a  half  per  cent  revenue  in  Barbados 
was  farmed  for  seven  years  at  a  yearly  rental  of  £7000,  and 
that  in  the  Leeward  Islands  for  the  same  term  for  £700 
yearly.^    Barbados  was  greatly  dissatisfied  with  this  arrange- 
ment, as  it  was  feared  that  it  meant  a  permanent  diversion  of 
the  revenue  to  England.^    Like  his  brother  Francis,  William, 
Lord  Willoughby,  always  vigorously  upheld  the  economic  in- 
terests of  the  colony,  and  was  outspoken  in  his  opposition.^ 
In  an  able  memorial  on  the  subject,^  he  fully  adopted  the 
colonial  contention  and,  after  reciting  the  terms  of  the  Act 
of  1663,  said  that  Barbados  would  be  displeased  at  seeing 
what  they  had  raised  for  themselves  shipped  to  England. 
Furthermore,  he  pointed  out,  that  during  the  recent  war 
"the  4I  p  Cent  being  applyed  all  to  the  publique  use  and 
the  Creditt  it  had  were  principall  means  at  that  time  of 

it  might  be  commuted  for  a  cash  sum  or  converted  into  some  reasonable 
rate  on  sugar  in  England.  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1816.  In  1669,  Nicholas 
Blake  said  that  this  tax  was  pernicious  and  very  vexatious  and  also  sug- 
gested that  in  its  place  an  additional  customs  duty  be  levied  in  England. 
C.  C.  1699,  P-  592.  In  this  year,  Barbados  addressed  the  King  complaining 
of  the  use  of  this  revenue  for  other  purposes  than  those  for  which  it  had 
been  intended,  and  asserting  their  inabihty  to  maintain  their  government, 
forts,  and  other  charges,  "w«^  ought  to  be  defrayed  out  of  that  said  Impo^ 
sition."    Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  465. 

»  Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  2,  ff.  211,  212;  Blathwayt,  Jour- 
nal I,  S.  81-84;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  537-539;  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395, 
f.  417;  Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  2441,  f.  is^;  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS. 
10,119,  f.  42;  H.M.C.  XV,  2,  p.  14;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  349.  In  1664,  it 
had  already  been  proposed  to  farm  this  revenue.  C.  C.  1661-1668  no. 
873. 

^C.  O.  31/2,  f.  i;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  116,  117,  155,  224. 

'  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  81. 

*  C.  O.  29/1,  ff.  122-124. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES    187 

preserving  this  Island  and  the  rest."  With  this  revenue 
farmed,  he  claimed,  Barbados  would  in  the  future  be  with- 
out money  or  credit  to  meet  sudden  emergencies.^ 

The  English  government  ordered  that  the  rent  derived 
from  the  farms  should  be  first  devoted  to  the  support  of 
the  forces  stationed  in  these  colonies  and  to  the  payment  of 
their  arrears,  and  then  to  the  satisfaction  of  such  persons 
to  whom  money  was  due  for  public  services  during  the 
recent  war  there.^  The  cumbersome  settlement  of  1663 
was  virtually  repudiated,  and  the  admittedly  legitimate 
claims  of  the  Carlisle  creditors  were  calmly  ignored.  Ap- 
parently they  never  received  a  farthing  of  their  dues.  More- 
over, the  farmers  found  their  contract  an  improfitable  one, 
and  made  a  number  of  claims  for  large  allowances  on  ac- 
count of  war,  plague,  hurricane,  and  other  unavoidable  fac- 
tors.^   Many  of  these  had  to  be  conceded,  and  thus  the 

1  "As  for  Antigua,  Montserrat,  and  the  rest  of  the  Leeward  Islands 
Except  Nevis,"  he  further  wrote,  "if  they  should  at  present  be  Farmed, 
in  all  probabihty  it  would  totally  ruine  those  Islands  and  so  discourage  the 
Planters,  as  to  driue  them  to  quitt  the  Island,  and  consequently  instead  of 
inuiting  many  of  his  Mai  Subjects  from  the  French  and  Dutch  (whom 
these  Warrs  haue  driuen  thither)  force  them  off,  and  besides  the  King 
would  Lett  that  which  he  knows  not  the  value  of,  for  if  they  prosper  (as 
being  encouraged  they  are  like  to  do)  the  4J  p  Cent  may  in  a  short  time 
exceede  Barbados." 

2  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  538,  539 ;  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1669-1672,  p.  707.  Cf. 
P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  547,  552.  In  1670,  Sir  Tobias  Bridge's  regiment  was  recalled 
and  disbanded,  which  greatly  reduced  the  charges  on  this  revenue.  C.  C. 
1669-1674,  p.  224;  Cal.  Treas.  Papers,  1557-1696,  p.  13. 

'  In  order  to  encourage  the  development  of  the  Enghsh  colony  in  St. 
Kitts,  the  Crown  had  also  remitted  the  payment  of  the  4^  per  cent  there 
during  the  first  three  years  of  Stapleton's  government,  from  1672  to  1675. 
C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  573. 


i1 


;/ 


i88 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


English  government  by  no  means  obtained  the  full  rental 
agreed  upon.  Of  the  £53,900  due  for  the  seven  years,  the 
farmers  in  1684  had  paid  only  about  £21,000.^  In  1677, 
when  these  farms  expired,  they  were  renewed  for  another 
seven  years,  but  at  the  reduced  rental  of  £5300 ;  on  account 
of  this  contract,  only  £22,000  had  been  paid  in  1684.^  In 
this  year  was  prepared  a  lengthy  report,  showing  in  detail 
that  this  revenue  had  in  no  way  answered  the  expectations  of 
those  interested  in  it,  that  it  was  greatly  in  arrear,  and  that 
the  system  of  farming  it  was  far  from  satisfactory.^  More- 
over, the  tax  and  its  method  of  collection  *  were  extremely 

*  Of  the  balance,  the  government  in  1684  claimed  only  £10,481,  whereof 
the  fanners  craved  that  £4800  be  allowed  them. 

2  On  these  farms,  see  Cal.  Treas.  Papers,  1 557-1696,  p.  14;  Cal.  Treas. 
Books,  1676-1679,  pp.  6,  II,  12,  16,  60,  61,  421,  423,  424,  477,  774,  775, 
836,  961,  1280,  1300;  Public  Record  Office,  Declared  Accoimts  of  Pipe 
Office,  Customs  Rolls  1254-1256;  Blathwayt,  Journal  I,  ff.  81,  82;  Brit. 
Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  2441,  f.  15;  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  28,089,  f-  4i- 

'  Cal.  Treas.  Papers,  1 557-1696,  pp.  13-15.  This  report  was  made  as 
a  result  of  the  demands  of  the  Carlisle  creditors  and  other  claimants  for 
satisfaction. 

^  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  28,089,  ^-  43~4S-  In  1675,  Barbados  complained 
about  the  method  of  collecting  this  tax  and  found  an  able  advocate  in  the 
Governor,  Sir  Jonathan  Atkins,  who  was  even  more  fearlessly  outspoken 
in  upholding  the  ecomomic  interests  of  the  colony  than  had  been  his  pred- 
ecessors, the  Willoughbys.  This  complaint  arose  from  the  fact  that, 
while  hitherto  a  certain  fixed  sum  had  been  paid  for  each  cask  of  sugar, 
the  farmers  of  the  duties  had  ordered  the  casks  weighed,  claiming  that  the 
planters  had  gradually  enlarged  their  size  and  were  thus  paying  much  less 
than  was  in  reality  due.  The  planters  denied  that  there  had  been  any 
fraud  and  said  that  hitherto  "there  was  never  any  Duty  more  cheerfully 
paid"  than  this,  but  that  weighing  the  casks  was  most  inconvenient  and 
expensive.  The  English  government,  as  was  usual,  carefully  investigated 
the  matter.     At  a  hearing  held  in  1676,  the  farmers  of  the  4i  per  cent 


ENGLISH    FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND   IMPERIAL  FINANCES     189 

unpopular  in  Barbados,  and  had  led  to  incessant  complaints 
during  the  fourteen  years  of  the  farm.  Although  the  revenue 
was  entirely  devoted  to  the  pubHc  concerns  of  these  islands,^ 

revenue  stated  that  in  Barbados  the  casks  of  sugar  had  been  raised  in 
size  from  1 200  to  1600  pounds.  This  was  denied  by  the  Gentlemen  Planters, 
and  the  matter  was  then  referred  to  the  Treasury,  which  was  just  negotiat- 
ing a  renewal  of  the  farm.  The  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  thereupon 
reported  that,  unless  there  had  been  great  abuses,  the  farmers  would  not 
have  gone  to  the  trouble  of  weighing  the  casks.  C.  O.  31/2,  ff.  177-181 ; 
C.  O.  391/1,  f-  240;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  210,  303,  474,  475,  478,  482;  C. 
C.  1677-1680,  pp.  6,  7.  In  1673,  instructions  had  been  sent  to  Willoughby 
in  Barbados  and  to  Staple  ton  in  the  Leeward  Islands  to  cause  all  sugars 
exported  to  be  weighed  as  insisted  upon  by  the  farmers.  Cal.  Treas.  Books, 
1672-1675,  p.  100.  When,  in  1684,  the  English  government  undertook  the 
management  of  this  revenue,  the  commissioners  entrusted  with  its  collection 
were  similarly  instructed.  Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  9,  ff.  43- 
48,  §  vi. 

1  In  1682,  the  Lords  of  Trade  reported  that  they  had  examined  the  pe- 
tition of  the  Carlisle  creditors  and  the  case  of  many  others  who  had  claims 
against  the  4^  per  cent  revenue,  and  that  they  found  that  this  duty  was 
already  charged  with  the  arrears  and  pay  of  the  two  foot-companies  in  these 
islands  and  of  the  royal  officials  there,  so  that  for  years  to  come  there  would 
be  nothing  to  spare  beyond  the  yearly  cost  and  necessary  support  of  the 
government,  "for  Yf^^  this  Revenue  was  granted  unto  your  M*:^  "  C.  O. 
29/3,  ff.  130,  131 ;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  268.  In  1672,  the  Nevis  Assembly 
refused  to  grant  a  salary  to  Sir  Charles  Wheler,  the  first  Governor-in-Chief 
of  the  Leeward  Islands,  on  the  ground  that  the  4I  per  cent  revenue  was 
in  lieu  of  all  dues  whatsoever  payable  to  the  Crown.  They  finally  offered 
him  a  salary,  'but  to  none  after  him.'  Wheler  refused  to  agree  to  a  law 
'with  an  exclusive  bar  to  the  rights  of  succeeding  Governors.'  C.  C.  1669- 
1674,  pp.  337-339.  In  1680,  the  King  ordered  £1500  out  of  the  4^  per 
cent  revenue  to  be  paid  to  Governor  Stapleton  for  erecting  forts  in  the 
Leeward  Islands.  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  475;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  870,  871. 
According  to  the  establishment  settled  by  the  Enghsh  government  in  1679, 
the  Governor  of  Barbados  received  a  salary  of  £800,  the  Governor  of  the 
Leeward  Islands  one  of  £700,  and  the  cost  of  the  two  foot-companies  located 
in  these  islands  was  £2778  yearly.    P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  XV,  f.  150; 


/ 


igo 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


there  was  a  chronic  fear,  especially  in  Bardados,  that  it 
would  be  otherwise  employed.^ 

Accordingly  in  1684,  when  the  farm  expired,  the  collection 
of  this  duty  was  turned  over  to  the  Lords  of  the  Treasury 
and  was  by  them  entrusted  to  their  subordinate  board,  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Customs.^  But  at  the  same  time, 
in  deference  to  the  oft-expressed  wishes  of  Barbados,  it 
was  determined  to  allow  the  colonies  to  commute  it  into 
another  tax  more  agreeable  to  them,  but  also  payable 
to  the  Crown.^     Instead  of  availing  itself  of  this  offer, 

P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  846,  847 ;  C.  O.  324/4,  ff.  63  et  seq.  Cf.  Brit.  Mus.,  Add. 
MSS.  10,119,  f.  52.  In  the  three  years,  1681  to  1683,  £9971  was  paid  for 
the  garrison  in  the  Leeward  Islands.    Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  15,896,  f.  54. 

*  In  1671,  the  Barbados  Assembly  wrote  to  the  Gentlemen  Planters  in 
London  complaining  that,  while  hitherto  this  revenue  had  been  'employed 
for  the  most  part  to  the  ends  mentioned '  in  the  Act  granting  it,  the  collec- 
tors appointed  by  the  farmers  refused  to  disburse  anything  for  these  pur- 
poses ;  and  that,  as  a  result,  the  forts  would  speedily  decay,  the  prison  was 
useless,  and  many  pubUc  concerns  were  neglected.  The  Committee  of 
Gentlemen  Planters  did  not,  however,  press  this  complaint,  as  they 
thought  it  inopportune  to  do  so  when  the  EngUsh  Treasury  was  all  but 
bankrupt.  C.  O.  31/2,  ff.  26-29,  87-94,  100,  loi ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp. 
199-201,  283,  284,  369.  At  this  time,  the  Provost  Marshal  General  of  the 
colony,  Edwyn  Stede,  reported  that  the  prison  was  so  dilapidated  that  no 
prisoners  could  be  seciu*ed  therein,  and  that  the  Assembly  had  refused  to 
repair  it,  stating  that  this  expense  should  be  charged  to  the  4^  per  cent 
revenue.  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  572.  In  1673,  Sir  Peter  Colleton,  then  acting 
Governor  of  Barbados,  said  that,  unless  the  Crown  would  assist  the  colony 
out  of  the  4§  per  cent  revenue,  he  could  not  see  how  the  pubUc  charges 
could  be  met.  C.  O.  1/31,  43 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  ff.  498,  499.  See  also 
C.  0.  31/2,  ff.  165,  172;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  193. 

*  Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  2441,  f.  15^. 

'  In  order  to  obviate  the  inconvenient  method  of  collecting  these  duties, 
Barbados  in  1679  had  offered  to  undertake  their  farm.  In  1680,  the  Assembly 
instructed  the  Gentlemen  Planters  to  endeavor  to  secure  the  commutation 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES    191 

Barbados  proposed  to  farm  the  tax  for  a  period  of  years  at 
an  annual  rent  of  £6000.^  The  Governor  of  the  colony, 
Sir  Richard  Button,  who  was  apparently  justly  accused  of 
having  been  bribed  by  the  Assembly  to  lend  his  valuable 
support  to  this  project,  wrote  strongly  in  its  favor.^  But 
at  the  same  time  the  newly  appointed  collectors  of  this 
revenue  m  Barbados  informed  their  superior  officials  in 
England,  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs,  that  they 
hoped  in  their  first  year  to  make  the  duties  worth  from 
£8000  to  10,000.3  Accordingly,  this  board  reported  ad- 
versely on  the  Barbados  offer,  and  it  was  rejected.* 

Under  this  new  management  the  four  and  a  half  per  cent 
revenue  showed  from  the  outset  somewhat  better  results,^  and 

of  this  tax  into  an  import  duty  in  England,  and,  if  this  could  not  be  ar- 
ranged, to  contract  for  the  farm  on  the  best  possible  terms.  Accordingly, 
in  168 1,  the  King  offered  the  colonies  the  opportunity  of  commuting  this 
tax  into  one  more  to  their  Uking.  Montserrat,  alone  of  the  Leeward  Isl- 
ands, stated  its  willingness  to  pay  an  equivalent  sum;  the  three  other 
islands  answered  that  they  desired  no  alteration.  The  Barbados  Assem- 
bly at  first  was  willing  to  grant  the  Crown  a  revenue  of  £5000,  arising 
from  duties  on  imported  wines  and  liquors,  which  they  stated  was  £1000 
more  than  the  King  had  received  from  Barbados'  share  of  the  4^  per  cent. 
A  bill  to  this  effect,  however,  failed  to  pass,  as  it  was  insinuated  that  the 
King  would  grant  this  revenue  to  his  rapacious  mistress,  Louise  de  Keroualle, 
Duchess  of  Portsmouth.  C.  O.  31/2,  ff.  339-341;  C.  O.  29/3,  ff.  72-75,- 
C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  352,  517,  518;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  15,  16,  30,  69, 
73-75,  90. 

1  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  8,  17. 

» Ibid.  pp.  21,  37,  38,  109. 

'  Ibid.  pp.  9,  26. 

4  Ibid.  pp.  56,  59,  64. 

^  The  Exchequer  received  on  this  account  £8260  in  1686-1687,  £5000 
in  1687-1688.    Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  10,119,  f-  215. 


192  THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 

later,  after  the  Revolution  of  1688/9,  when  the  method  of  col- 
lection was  better  organized,  it  produced  a  considerable  in- 
come, which  the  English  government  disposed  of  at  its 
pleasure.     But  up  to  that  time  it  had  by  no  means  sufficed 
for  the  payment  of  the  salaries  of  the  governors  of  Barbados 
and  the  Leeward  Islands  and  for  the  support  of  the  St. 
Kitts  garrison.!    ^s  a  result,  the  other  legitimate  claims  on 
this  revenue  remained  unsatisfied.    The  annuity,  which  had 
been  granted  to  the  Earl  of  Kinnoul  in  consideration  for  the 
surrender  of  his  unquestionably  vaHd  proprietary  rights, 
was  not  paid  from  this  source,  but  had  to  be  defrayed  by 
the  Exchequer .2    Barbados  was,  however,  far  from  satisfied. 
Apart  from  aught  else,  the  bulk  of  the  revenue  was  coUected 
there,  but  was  devoted  to  the  pay  of  the  forces  in  St.  Kitts. 
The  duty  was  regarded  in  the  island  as  a  distinct  grievance, 
to  which  it  was  hoped  that  the  new  government  of  WiUiam 
and  Mary  would  give  redress. 

As  in  the  West  Indies,  so  in  Virginia,  the  Crown  had  suc- 
ceeded to  the  rights  of  the  proprietor ;  in  this  case,  it  was 
the  London  Company,  whose  charter  had  been  revoked  in 
1624.  In  its  fruitless  efforts  to  obtain  some  return  on  the 
capital  invested  in  the  undertaking,  this  colonizing  body 
had  granted  land  to  settlers  in  Virginia,  subject  to  the  pay- 
ment of  an  annual  rent  of  two  shiUings  for  every  hundred 
acres.    This  system  was  continued  when  the  Crown  assumed 

1  The  actual  income  from  1670  to  1684  was  approximately  £3000  yearly, 
while  these  charges  amounted  to  about  £4300. 

2  It  was,  however,  not  paid  in  full.  Cal.  Treas.  Papers,  1557-1696,  PP. 
13-15-  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1669-1672,  pp.  707,  1216,  1304;  ibid.  1676- 
1679,  Nov.  13  and  28,  1676;  Letters  of  Sir  Joseph  Williamson  (Camden 
Society,  1874)  I,  p.  40- 


^>.„ 


ENGLISH   FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES    193 

the  administration  of  the  colony,  but  the  few  desultory 
attempts  made  by  the  first  Stuarts  to  collect  these  quit- 
rents  met  with  virtually  no  success.^  In  1662,  however, 
the  Restoration  government  instructed  Governor  Berkeley 
to  see  that  the  quit-rents  were  justly  and  fairly  levied.^ 
At  this  time,  these  dues  should  have  been  paid  on  about 
one  million  acres,  which  would  have  meant  an  annual  in- 
come of  £1000.3  But  as  an  Act  of  the  local  legislature 
allowed  the  payment  of  the  quit-rents  in  tobacco  at  the 
excessive  rate  of  twopence  a  pound,^  this  revenue,  granted 
that  it  could  have  been  collected,  would  have  been  con- 
siderably less  than  this  sum.^  Not  only  did  the  planters 
resist  the  payment  of  these  moderate  dues,  but  in  addition 
whatever  revenue  was  collected  was  claimed  by  Henry 
Norwood,  who  in  1650  had  been  appointed  Treasurer  of 
Virginia  by  Charles  11.^    The  situation  was  further  com- 

1  Bruce,  Economic  History  of  Virginia  I,  pp.  556  et  seq.;  Beer,  Origins, 
PP-  321,  322. 

2  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  368 ;  Va.  Mag.  Ill,  pp.  15-20. 
'  Va.  Mag.  Ill,  pp.  42-47. 

*  Act  xxxvi  of  1 66 1,  Hening  II,  p.  31.    Cf.  p.  99. 

^In  1662,  Governor  Berkeley  said  that  the  current  price  of  tobacco 
was  one-penny  the  pound.    Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  356. 

«  Force  Tracts  III,  no.  10,  pp.  49,  50;  Va.  Mag.  XIV,  p.  268.  In  1671, 
Berkeley  said  that  this  was  the  only  revenue  that  the  King  had  in  Vir- 
ginia, but  that  he  had  given  it  away  to  a  "deserving  servant  Coll.  Henry 
Norwood."  C.  0.  1/26,  771.  Norwood  claimed  that  his  predecessor  as 
Treasurer,  Claiborne,  had  received  the  quit-rents  without  account  by  vir- 
tue of  his  office,  and  that  he  likewise  was  not  accountable  for  this  revenue. 
The  English  Treasury,  however,  decided  against  this  ill-founded  conten- 
tion. Blathwayt,  Journal  I,  pp.  93-95.  In  this  connection  it  may  be 
pointed  out  that,  in  September  of  1649,  Charles  II  granted  to  Sir  John 


1 


II 


»■ 


», 


,1 1' 


1 


/ 


192 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


later,  after  the  Revolution  of  1688/9,  when  the  method  of  col- 
lection was  better  organized,  it  produced  a  considerable  in- 
come, which  the  EngUsh  government  disposed  of  at  its 
pleasure.     But  up  to  that  time  it  had  by  no  means  sufficed 
for  the  payment  of  the  salaries  of  the  governors  of  Barbados 
and  the  Leeward  Islands  and  for  the  support  of  the  St. 
Kitts  garrison.^    As  a  result,  the  other  legitimate  claims  on 
this  revenue  remained  imsatisfied.    The  annuity,  which  had 
been  granted  to  the  Earl  of  Kinnoul  in  consideration  for  the 
surrender  of  his  unquestionably  valid  proprietary  rights, 
was  not  paid  from  this  source,  but  had  to  be  defrayed  by 
the  Exchequer .2    Barbados  was,  however,  far  from  satisfied. 
Apart  from  aught  else,  the  bulk  of  the  revenue  was  collected 
there,  but  was  devoted  to  the  pay  of  the  forces  in  St.  Kitts. 
The  duty  was  regarded  in  the  island  as  a  distinct  grievance, 
to  which  it  was  hoped  that  the  new  government  of  William 
and  Mary  would  give  redress. 

As  m  the  West  Indies,  so  in  Virginia,  the  Crown  had  suc- 
ceeded to  the  rights  of  the  proprietor ;  in  this  case,  it  was 
the  London  Company,  whose  charter  had  been  revoked  in 
1624.  In  its  fruitless  efforts  to  obtain  some  return  on  the 
capital  invested  in  the  undertaking,  this  colonizing  body 
had  granted  land  to  settlers  in  Virginia,  subject  to  the  pay- 
ment of  an  annual  rent  of  two  shilUngs  for  every  hundred 
acres.    This  system  was  continued  when  the  Crown  assumed 

1  The  actual  income  from  1670  to  1684  was  approximately  £3000  yearly, 
while  these  charges  amounted  to  about  £4300. 

« It  was,  however,  not  paid  in  full.  Cal.  Treas.  Papers,  1557-1696,  pp. 
13-15;  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1669-1672,  pp.  707,  1216,  1304;  ibid.  1676- 
1679,  Nov.  13  and  28,  1676 ;  Letters  of  Sir  Joseph  Williamson  (Camden 
Society,  1874)  I,  p.  40. 


ENGLISH   FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND   IMPERIAL  FINANCES    193 

the  administration  of  the  colony,  but  the  few  desultory 
attempts  made  by  the  first  Stuarts  to  collect  these  quit- 
rents  met  with  \drtually  no  success.^  In  1662,  however, 
the  Restoration  government  instructed  Governor  Berkeley 
to  see  that  the  quit-rents  were  justly  and  fairly  levied.^ 
At  this  time,  these  dues  should  have  been  paid  on  about 
one  million  acres,  which  would  have  meant  an  annual  in- 
come of  £1000.3  But  as  an  Act  of  the  local  legislature 
allowed  the  payment  of  the  quit-rents  in  tobacco  at  the 
excessive  rate  of  twopence  a  pound,^  this  revenue,  granted 
that  it  could  have  been  collected,  would  have  been  con- 
siderably less  than  this  sum.^  Not  only  did  the  planters 
resist  the  payment  of  these  moderate  dues,  but  in  addition 
whatever  revenue  was  collected  was  claimed  by  Henry 
Norwood,  who  in  1650  had  been  appointed  Treasurer  of 
Virginia  by  Charles  11.^    The  situation  was  further  com- 

1  Bruce,  Economic  History  of  Virginia  I,  pp.  556  et  seq.;  Beer,  Origins, 
PP-  321,  322. 

2  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  368;  Va.  Mag.  Ill,  pp.  15-20. 
2  Va.  Mag.  Ill,  pp.  42-47. 

^  Act  xxxvi  of  1661,  Hening  II,  p.  31.    Cf.  p.  99. 

^  In  1662,  Governor  Berkeley  said  that  the  current  price  of  tobacco 
was  one-penny  the  pound.    Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  356. 

«  Force  Tracts  III,  no.  10,  pp.  49,  50;  Va.  Mag.  XIV,  p.  268.  In  1671, 
Berkeley  said  that  this  was  the  only  revenue  that  the  King  had  in  Vir- 
ginia, but  that  he  had  given  it  away  to  a  "deserving  servant  Coll.  Henry 
Norwood."  C.  O.  1/26,  771.  Norwood  claimed  that  his  predecessor  as 
Treasurer,  Claiborne,  had  received  the  quit-rents  without  account  by  vir- 
tue of  his  office,  and  that  he  likewise  was  not  accountable  for  this  revenue. 
The  EngUsh  Treasury,  however,  decided  against  this  ill-founded  conten- 
tion. Blathwayt,  Journal  I,  pp.  93-95.  In  this  connection  it  may  be 
pointed  out  that,  in  September  of  1649,  Charies  II  granted  to  Sir  John 


^l«''^i 


A 


■I'Vlf 

11 


194 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


ENGLISH  FISCAL   SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES    195 


plicated,  when  in  1669  the  Earl  of  St.  Albans,  Lord  Berkeley, 
and  others  secured  the  grant  of  the  large  tract  of  land  in- 
cluded within  the  rivers  Potomac  and  Rappahannock  and 
Chesapeake  Bay.  In  this  extensive  region,  known  as  the 
Northern  Neck,  these  proprietors  were  made  lords  of  the  soil 
and  were  authorized  to  grant  land  and  to  collect  quit-rents 
from  it.^  Four  years  later,  in  1673,  Charles  II  granted  for 
thirty-one  years  to  the  Earl  of  Arlington  and  Lord  Culpeper 
all  of  Virginia,  together  with  the  rents  reserved  in  any  prior 
grants,  and  empowered  them  to  convey  any  part  of  these 
lands  to  settlers,  reserving  the  customary  quit-rents  for 
themselves.^ 

Hitherto  Virginia  had  paid  but  slight  attention  to  the 
quit-rent  system.  The  rents  had  been  virtually  ignored, 
and  the  Crown  had  derived  no  revenue  from  this  source.^ 
It  was  realized,  however,  that  private  individuals  would  be 
more  energetic  in  enforcing  their  legal  rights,  and  for  this 
reason,  as  well  as  for  more  vital  ones,  Virginia  protested 
most  emphatically  against  these  grants.     In  consequence 

Berkeley  and  Sir  William  Davenant  the  office  of  Treasurer  of  Virginia,  and 
that  shortly  thereafter  Davenant  was  appointed  to  this  office,  "in  the  ab- 
sence of "  Berkeley,  Claiborne  being  "affected  to  the  Parliam^  "  Pepys  MSS. 
(H.M.C.  191 1),  pp.  284,  302.  Davenant,  however,  did  not  exercise  the 
functions  of  this  office. 

1  Patent  Rolls,  21  Ch.  II,  Part  4. 

«  Hening  II,  pp.  427,  428,  519,  568-578 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  334 ;  Blath- 
wayt,  Journal  II,  f.  403. 

^  When  opposing  the  St.  Albans  and  Culpeper  grants,  the  Virginia  agents 
stated  in  1675  that,  "though  there  is  a  Quit  rent  reserved  to  the  Crown  of 
one  shilling  for  every  50  Acres  Yet  that  hath  not  nor  can  be  paid  in  money 
for  want  of  Coyne,  and  is  in  itselfe  soe  inconsiderable  that  it  hath  never  been 
paid  into  the  Exchequ'^ "    C.  O.  1/34,  loi,  102. 


thereof,  the  colony  succeeded  in  securing  a  promise  from 
Charles  II,  that  he  would  take  the  quit-rent  revenue  into  his 
own  hands  and  apply  it  to  the  public  services  of  the  colony.^ 
The  political  disturbances  in  Virginia  and  the  time  con- 
sumed in  its  settlement  after  Bacon's  rebellion  occasioned 
some  delay  in  carrying  into  effect  this  promise,  and  then 
followed  prolonged  negotiations  with  Lord  Culpeper,  to 
whom  Lord  Arlington  had  conveyed  his  interest  in  the 
patent  of  1673.^  Although  Culpeper  had  never  been  able 
to  enforce  his  valuable  rights  under  this  grant,  he  refused  to 
surrender  them  without  adequate  compensation.^  Finally 
in  1684,  in  return  for  a  pension  of  £600  a  year,  payable 
during  the  still  unexpired  twenty  years  of  his  lease,  Culpeper 
resigned  his  patent  of  1673,  as  well  as  some  other  claims  on 

*  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  810.  See  also  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  100;  P.  C.  Cal.  II, 
pp.  21,  22. 

2  Hening  II,  pp.  521,  578-583. 

'  In  1679,  Virginia  petitioned  Charles  II  for  a  remission  of  the  arrears 
of  these  rents,  and  for  their  future  appropriation  to  the  defence  of  the 
colony.  In  reply,  Lord  Culpeper,  then  Governor  of  Virginia,  was  instructed 
to  state  that  the  King  had  been  carefully  considering  this  matter,  and  would 
shortly  give  "such  orders  as  shall  consist  with  our  service,  and  the  ease 
of  our  people  there."  Va.  Mag.  XIV,  pp.  359-361.  In  1680,  Culpeper 
wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  that  be  had  issued  a  proclamation  for  the  col- 
lection of  the  quit-rents,  but  that  as  yet  he  had  not  received  any  particular 
account  of  them  and  feared  that  the  low  price  of  tobacco  and  the  cost  of 
collection  would  make  them  inconsiderable.  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  154. 
In  1683,  Culpeper  stated  that  Hhe  non-payment  of  quit-rents  has  done 
great  mischief.  The  only  remedy  is  to  cause  the  quit-rents  reserved  to  be 
paid  by  large  holders  in  specie,  and  by  others  in  produce,  that  they  may 
throw  up  the  land  that  they  cannot  turn  to  account  and  leave  it  open  for 
others.'  In  other  words,  he  proposed  to  use  these  rents  as  a  tax  on  unde- 
veloped land.    Ibid,  p.  497 ;  Va.  Mag.  Ill,  pp.  225-238. 


196 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


l\ 


the  Crown.*  This  annuity  was  a  charge  on  the  English 
Exchequer,  and  thus  upon  the  English  taxpayer  was  ulti- 
mately shifted  the  burden  of  Charles's  ill-advised  liberality 
towards  his  favorites.  , 

In  the  same  year  in  which  this  agreement  was  concluded, 
an  Order  in  Coimcil  definitely  ordered  the  application  of  this 
quit-rent  revenue  to  the  uses  of  Virginia.^  At  the  same 
time,  Charles  II  wrote  to  Lord  Howard  of  Effingham,  the 
Governor  of  Virginia,  informing  him  of  this  agreement  and 
instructing  him  to  collect  these  rents  in  coin  and  not  in  to- 
bacco, as  had  been  optional  under  the  Virginia  law  of  1661.^ 
Hitherto  that  had  been  the  customary  method  of  paying 
such  of  these  rents  as  could  be  collected,^  but  the  established 
rate  of  twopence  a  pound  was  greatly  in  excess  of  the  value 
of  the  inferior  tobacco  usually  tendered  for  these  dues.  The 
colony's  gratification  at  the  successful  outcome  of  its  strug- 

*  Blathwayt,  Journal  I,  ff.  11,  124,  125,  128,  129;  C.  C.  1681-1685, 
PP-  347,  348,  547,  660;  Va.  Hist.  Register  III,  p.  183;  C.  O.  1/52,  56; 
Va.  Mag.  XIX,  pp.  2,  3.  In  1683,  the  Virginia  Council  had  begged  the  King 
to  give  Culpeper  'just  compensation'  for  his  patent  and  to  apply  the  quit- 
rents  to  the  use  oi  the  colony,  'which  will  be  a  great  reHef  and  a  help  towards 
a  fund  for  meeting  emergencies.'  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  425;  Hening  II, 
pp.  561-563.    Cf.  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  623,  637,  639,  640,  747. 

2  Blathwayt,  Journal  I,  ff.  378-381. 

3  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  670;  Hening  II,  pp.  521,  522;  Va.  Hist.  Register 
III,  p.  183. 

*  Among  the  requests  of  York  Coimty  in  1677  was  one,  to  the  effect 
that  the  quit-rents  should  be  paid  in  tobacco  at  2d.  a  p)ound,  as  had  been 
customary  for  many  years.  To  this  the  Commissioners,  who  had  been  sent 
to  pacify  Virginia,  repUed:  "It  was  neuer  paid  otherwis,  but  this  left  to 
the  Right  Honourable  the  Lord  Treasurer  being  part  of  his  Majesties  reve- 
nues but  neuer  yet  accompted  for  into  the  chequre."    C.  O.  1/39,  92,  93. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES    197 

gle  was  somewhat  marred  by  this  order  for  the  payment  of 
the  rents  in  coin,  and  also  by  the  fact  that  the  quit-rents 
of  the  Northern  Neck  of  Virginia  were  not  included  in  this 
settlement.^ 

In  1685,  the  colony  thanked  the  King  for  appropriating 
the  quit-rents  to  the  uses  of  the  colony,  but  entreated  him 
to  allow  those  living  in  the  Northern  Neck  to  share  in  this 
bounty.^  At  the  same  time,  the  Assembly  requested  the 
Governor  to  accept  tobacco  in  payment  of  these  rents,  since 
coin  could  not  readily  be  obtained.^  In  reply,  the  Governor 
expressed  surprise  at  such  a  request,  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
this  revenue  was  to  be  applied  to  the  public  services  of  the 
colony,  but  agreed  to  give  orders  for  the  acceptance  of 
tobacco  in  cases  where  money  was  scarce.^  The  English 
government  was,  however,  firm  on  this  point,  and  insisted 
that  payment  be  made  in  money .^  Nor  was  anything  done 
towards  buying  out  the  firmly  established  interest  of  the 
patentees  of  1669  in  the  Northern  Neck. 

1  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  734.  Cf.  Va.  Mag.  VIII,  pp.  i77-i79-  Regarding 
these  rents  in  the  Northern  Neck,  Culpeper  stated  in  1683  that  "the  Thing 
hath  been  soe  fully  Setled,  &  Quietly  Enjoyed  that  the  Assembly  Sent 
Agents  to  purchase  the  Same,  and  diverse  of  the  Planters  Inhabitants  & 
others  have  Since  bought  Severall  Quitt=Rents  and  other  Parts  thereof,  to 
them  and  Their  Heirs  for  ever."  C.  0.  1/52,  56.  Culpeper  had  acquired 
the  rights  of  the  patentees  of  1669,  and  in  1688  letters  patent  were  issued 
confirming  this  grant.  From  Culpeper  it  descended  to  the  Fairfax  family. 
Va.  Mag.  XV,  pp.  392-399 ;  Va.  Hist.  Register  III,  p.  183. 

«  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  5,  32.    Cf.  pp.  179,  180. 

'  Ibid.  p.  119. 

*  Ibid.  The  Assembly  then  repeated  its  request  and  received  the  same 
answer.    Ibid.  p.  121. 

'^  Ibid.  pp.  185,  271,  279. 


!i 


i 


igS 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Under  this  new  arrangement,  the  quit-rents  were  more 
systematically  collected,  and  began  to  yield  a  regular  income, 
which  in  the  course  of  time  became  of  not  inconsiderable  size. 
During  the  reign  of  James  II,  however,  it  averaged  only 
about  £850  yearly.!  'pj^-g  ^^^^l  revenue  was  allowed  to  ac- 
cumulate as  a  fund  for  such  special  emergencies  as  might  arise 
inthecolony.  Thus,in  1685,  the  EngKsh  Treasury  authorized 
Governor  Howard  to  apply  £519  from  it  to  the  discharge  of 
the  debt  of  Virginia's  regular  revenue,  which  had  been  insuf- 
ficient to  meet  the  expenses  of  the  colony's  administration.^ 

Like  the  four  and  a  half  per  cent  revenue  in  the  West 
Indies,  the  receipts  from  these  quit-rents  were  regarded  as 
something  entirely  distinct  and  apart  from  the  ordinary 
revenue  of  the  colony.  They  were  looked  upon  in  England  as 
property  that  had  devolved  upon  the  Crown  as  successor 
to  the  proprietor.  If  the  King  appropriated  them  to  the 
uses  of  the  colony,  this  act  was  regarded  as  one  of  royal 
bounty.     As  in  the  case  of  the  West  Indian  export  duties, 

VIRGINIA  QUIT-RENT  REVENUE 


1684  . 

1685  . 

1686  . 

1687  . 

1688  . 

1689  . 

1690  . 

Blathwayt,  Journal  II,  f.  244. 


£  574 
£1029 

£  899 
£  S36 
£  679 
£685 


•   £  747 

The  sheriffs  collected  the  rents  and  de- 
ducted 10  per  cent  for  their  services.  The  Auditor  then  received  them 
from  the  sheriffs  and  was  allowed  7^  per  cent  for  his  work.  Va.  Hist. 
Register  III,  p.  185. 

2  Blathwayt,  Journal  I,  ff.  172,  181. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES    199 

the  colony  had  no  control  over  the  funds  derived  from 
this  source.  Nor  could  the  royal  governors  draw  upon 
them.  All  payments  from  this  revenue  had  to  be  specifically 
authorized  by  warrants  drawn  in  England.^  Such  a  fimd, 
imder  the  sole  control  of  the  Enghsh  government,  could  be 
developed  into  an  effective  instnmaent  of  political  restraint, 
and  could  be  advantageously  used  for  some  invaluable  ob- 
jects, whose  merits  were  apt  to  escape  the  restricted  vision 
of  the  provincial  legislatures. 

In  addition  to  acquiring  the  rights  of  the  patentees  of 
the  Caribbee  Islands  and  of  Virginia,  the  Crown  was  also 
the  legal  successor  of  the  proprietors  of  the  Bermudas  and 
of  New  York.  In  neither  of  these  cases,  however,  was  there 
created  at  this  time  a  substantial  independent  income 
accruing  to  the  Crown.  The  Bermuda  Company  had  tried 
to  enforce  a  monopoly  of  the  commerce  of  the  islands  belong- 
ing to  it,  and  had  also  imposed  on  the  colony's  crop  of 
tobacco  a  tax  of  one-penny  a  poxmd,  which  they  claimed  was 
employed  for  their  pubhc  services  and  for  those  of  the  colony.^ 
The  settlers  in  the  Bermudas  complained  bitterly  and  in- 
cessantly about  this  restrictive  policy  of  the  Company,  and 
after  years  of  agitation  and  demmciation,  in  1684,  its  charter 
was  finally  revoked.^    As  a  result,  the  Crown  fell  heir  to 

*  In  1688,  James  II  declared  that  this  quit-rent  revenue  should  be  ap- 
plied "to  the  Benefit  and  better  Support  of  the  Government  of  that  colony- 
according  to  such  warrants  as  should  from  time  to  time  be  issued  by  His 
Maj'ty."    Va.  Hist.  Register  III,  p.  183. 

"Lefroy,  Bermudas  II,  pp.  429-433;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  393, 
394. 

'  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  676,  738. 


IfVt 


1 1 .1 


200 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


the  rights  of  the  defunct  Company.  The  English  govern- 
ment, with  ahnost  incomprehensible  stupidity,  then  decided 
to  continue  its  predecessor's  obnoxious  trade  regulations, 
regardless  of  the  fact  that  they  had  been  the  fundamental 
cause  of  the  colony's  discontent  and  of  the  ensuing  successful 
agitation  against  the  Company's  charter.  During  the  pre- 
ceding regime,  the  colony's  crop  of  tobacco  could  be  exported 
only  in  the  "magazine  ship,"  belonging  to  the  Company. 
An  attempt  was  made  to  continue  this  regulation,  but,  as  it 
proved  burdensome  and  could  not  be  enforced,  it  had  to  be 
definitely  abandoned  in  1688.^  Similarly,  the  government 
tried  to  continue  the  Company's  duty  of  one-penny  a  pound 
on  tobacco.  In  1684,  it  was  estimated  that  this  duty,  if  it 
were  fully  collected,  would  yield  yearly  from  £1600  to  £1800.2 
The  people  in  the  colony,  however,  resolutely  refused  to 
pay  this  tax,  and  consequently  this  claim  also  had  to  be 
abandoned  by  the  government.^  In  addition  to  these  two 
sources  of  profit,  the  Bermuda  Company  had  derived  an 
income  from  the  land,  of  which  it  had  retained  possession, 
and  from  the  whale  fishery.  It  was  figured  that,  under 
good  administration,  these  pubKc  lands  would  yield  £600 
yearly,  and  the  royalties  on  the  whale  fishery  £100.*  The 
Bermudas  were,  however,  extremely  independent,  even  to 
the  verge  of  lawlessness,  and  likewise  frustrated  all  attempts 

»  C.  O.  1/58,  75;  C.  O.  1/60,  88  vii;  C.  0.  1/62,  36;  C.  C.  1685-1688, 
pp.  174,  175,  179,  185,  213,  222,  258,  259,  359,  392-395,  519,  529,  551,  568, 
597- 

2  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  663,  664. 

^  Ibid.  1685-1688,  pp.  49,  loi,  157,  394. 

*Ibid.  1681-1685,  pp.  663,  664;  ibid.  1685-1688,  pp.  258,  259. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES    201 

to  collect  an  adequate  income  from  these  sources.^  In 
1686,  Sir  Robert  Robinson  was  appointed  Governor  of 
the  colony  with  a  salary  of  £400,  of  which  £240  was 
to  be  paid  by  the  EngUsh  Exchequer,  and  £100  was  to 
come  from  the  royalties  on  whales  and  £60  from  the 
Crown  lands.2  g^^  fj-om  these  last  two  sources,  Robin- 
son wrote  in  1687,  that  he  would  be  able  to  secure  re- 
spectively only  £15  and  £25.^  Thus  the  Crown  was  un- 
able to  establish  an  mdependent  revenue  in  the  Bermudas, 
as  it  had  done  in  the  Caribbee  Islands,  and  the  salary  of 
the  Governor  had  to  be  defrayed  in  large  part  by  the 
EngHsh  Treasury. 

When,  in  1685,  James  II  succeeded  to  the  Crown,  New 
York  by  this  fact  became  a  royal  provmce.  As  proprietor, 
James  had  derived  no  income  from  the  colony,  since  its 
revenue  as  a  rule  fell  short  of  the  expenses  of  admmistra- 
tion.  The  great  bulk  of  this  revenue  was  derived  from 
import  and  export  duties.  In  addition,  some  of  the  land 
had  been  granted  on  condition  of  the  payment  of  incon- 
siderable quit-rents,  which  were,  however,  inefficiently 
collected.*  As  royal  Governor,  Dongan  induced  many  to 
pay  these  rents,  and  in  some  instances  he  also  succeeded  in 
increasing  the  amount  payable  under  the  original  grant.^ 
The  start  thus  made  was,  however,  only  a  false-  one,  for  it 

1  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  48-51,  295. 

*  C.  O.  1/58,  75 ;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  258,  259. 
3  C.  O.  1/60,  88. 

*  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  260-262;  C.  O.  155/1,  ff-  18-33;  C.  C.  1677- 
1680,  pp.  237,  238. 

»  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  p.  401 ;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  330,  331. 


202 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


was  only  seventy  years  later  that  the  New  York  quit-rents 
yielded  a  revenue  of  any  importance.^ 

From  the  foregoing  it  is  apparent  that,  prior  to  1689,  the 
EngUsh  Treasury  derived  virtuaUy  no  direct  income  from 
the  colonies,  and  that  the  revenue  which  accrued  to  the 
Crown  in  its  various  capacities  was  practicaUy  in  its  entirety 
devoted  to  colonial  purposes.  But,  if  the  colonies  were 
but  a  most  insignificant  source  of  direct  profit  to  the  Ex- 
chequer and  to  the  Crown,  they  were  at  the  same  time, 
apart  from  the  cost  of  imperial  defence,  but  a  slight  and 
constantly  diminishing  fiscal  burden.  It  was  the  steadfast 
policy  of  the  EngHsh  government  that  each  colony  should 
ultimately  raise  the  funds  for  its  own  local  expenses.  By 
the  end  of  the  Restoration  period  this  had  been  practically 
effected. 

From  the  imperial  standpoint  the  English  colonies  were 
divided  into  two  distinct  groups,  the  so-called  "proprieties" 
and  the  royal  provinces.    The  former,  whether  of  the  cor- 
poration or  proprietary  type,  inevitably  had  to  develop  their 
own  fiscal  systems,  since  they  were  subordinate  jurisdic- 
tions with  nearly  complete  powers  of  local  self-government. 
However  significant  their  various  fiscal  regulations  may  be 
for  the  student  of  the  economic  development  of  the  United 
States,  they  have  in  themselves  but  slight  imperial  impor- 
tance.   Very  little  control  was,  or  could  be,  exercised  by 
England  over  the  manner  in  which  these  semi-independent 
communities  raised  the  funds  for  their  local  needs.     In  the 
crown  colonies  it  was  naturally  far  otherwise.    Until  the 

^  C.  O.  S/216,  f.  8. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES     203 

end  of  the  reign  of  Charles  11,  the  only  colony  of  this  type 
on  the  continent  was  Virginia,  while  in  the  Caribbean  Sea 
were  Jamaica,  Barbados,  and  the  Leeward  Islands.    In  all 
of  these  colonies  were  a  number  of  oflacials  appointed  by 
the  Crown,  and  inevitably  the  question  arose :  Who  was  to 
pay  the  salaries  of  these  governors,  secretaries,  and  judges  ? 
It  was,  however,  realized  that  these  officials,  especially  the 
governors,    would   become    dependent   upon    the    colonial 
assemblies  granting  their  salaries,  unless  there  were  estab- 
lished permanent  revenues,  which  the  Crown  was  free  to  use 
for  such  purposes.    Hence  it  became  the  aim  of  the  English 
government  to  induce  the  royal  provinces  to  grant  to  the 
Crown  perpetual  revenues,  which  could  be  disposed  of  in  its 
discretion  for  the  public  services  of  the  colony.     In  Barba- 
dos and  in  the  Leeward  Islands,  this  result  had  been  attained 
by  the  four  and  a  half  per  cent  duty.     But  this  revenue  had 
been  granted  under  especial  circumstances,  such  as  did  not 
obtain  in  the  other  colonies.    Moreover,  it  was  remitted  to 
England  and  paid  out  by  warrants  drawn  there  on  the  Eng- 
lish Exchequer ;  and,  in  addition,  the  English  government 
did  not  feel  bound  to  devote  these  funds  to  the  immediate 
services  of  the  colonies  whence  they  were  derived.    Unless 
in  return  for  exceptional  considerations,  such  as  the  English 
government  was  able  to  offer  only  in  the  case  of  the  Car- 
ibbee  Islands,  no  colonial  legislature  would  be  willing  to 
grant  a  revenue  of  this  nature.    Hence,  the  revenues  granted 
to  the  Crown  in  Virginia  and  Jamaica  were  kept  in  the 
colonies,  and  could  be  used  solely  for  their  public  services. 
Unlike  the  four  and  a  half  per  cent,  they  were  not  included 


I 


'1 


204 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


in  the  receipts  of  the  English  Exchequer,  but  were  treated 
purely  as  the  revenues  of  the  respective  colonies.  Perma- 
nent revenues  of  even  this  nature  were,  however,  not  readily 
granted  by  the  colonies,  and  the  English  government 
was  only  partially  successful  in  its  efforts  towards  this 
end. 

During  the  reign  of  Charles  I,  the  Governor  of  Virginia 
had  received  a  salary  from  the  English  Exchequer,  but  under 
the  Commonwealth  the  colony  itself  had  made  this  provi- 
sion.^ After  the  Restoration,  the  English  government  made 
some  temporary  arrangement  for  remimerating  Sir  William 
Berkeley's  services  as  Governor;^  but  already  in  1662  the 
Council  for  Foreign  Plantations  discussed  this  question,  and 
decided  that  Virginia  'should  bear  its  own  charge  and  no 
longer  be  burthensome  to  the  Crown.'  ^  Accordingly,  Gov- 
ernor Berkeley  was  instructed  to  take  his  salary  of  £1000 
out  of  the  Virginia  export  duty  of  two  shillings  on  every 
hogshead  of  tobacco.^  These  duties  were  collected  by  offi- 
cials appointed  by  the  Assembly  and  accountable  to  it,^  and 
yielded  an  adequate  revenue.    As  instructed,  Berkeley  took 

1  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  320,  321,  367. 

*  In  1 66 1,  a  warrant  was  issued  for  the  pajmient  of  £2000  to  Berkeley 
*out  of  duties  and  customs  arising  from  the  next  ship  from  Virginia  in  rec- 
ompense for  his  services  as  Governor.'  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  171;  Cal. 
Treas.  Books,  1 660-1667,  p.  296. 

3  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  345. 

*  Ibid.  no.  368. 

*  Hening  II,  pp.  130-132.  In  case  the  tobacco  was  exported  to  any  place 
but  the  English  dominions  in  Europe,  the  duty  was  105.  Ibid.  pp.  133, 
134.  In  1662,  a  number  of  EngUsh  traders  complained  about  this  export 
duty  and  the  tonnage  dues.    C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  352. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES     205 

his  salary  from  this  source,  and  from  it  also  were  paid  the 
members  of  the  Council.^ 

Although  there  was  no  friction  —  as  Governor  Berkeley 
completely  dominated  the  legislature,  there  could  be  none 
—  this  financial  system  was  not  wholly  satisfactory  to  the 
English  government,  because  the*  revenue  was  neither  a 
permanent  one,  nor  at  its  disposal  and  under  its  immediate 
control.  In  1679,  was  made  a  comprehensive  and  careful 
investigation  of  the  budgets  and  financial  systems  of  the 
crown  colonies,^  and  as  a  result  it  was  determined  to  estab- 
Ush  in  Virginia  and  in  Jamaica  perpetual  revenues.  In 
1680,  Lord  Culpeper,  the  Governor  of  Virginia,  brought  to 
the  colony  a  law  to  this  effect  drafted  by  the  Lords  of  Trade,' 
with  instructions  to  secure  its  enactment  by  the  local  legis- 
lature.^ After  encountering  considerable  difficulty,  he  finally 
succeeded  in  so  doing.  At  the  first  reading,  the  Assembly 
unanimously  rejected  this  English-made  bill,  but  ultimately 
passed  it  with  equal  unanimity,  but  only  after  having  added 

1  The  Virginia  Assembly  made  Berkeley  a  regular  additional  allowance  of 
£200  out  of  this  revenue.  In  the  seventies,  it  amounted  to  about  £2500 
yearly,  of  which  the  Governor  received  from  £1200  to  £1400  and  the  Council 
from  £200  to  £250.  C.  O.  1/26,  77  i ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  P-  5o8 ;  C.  0.  1/34, 
103  ;  Hening  II,  pp.  314,  315.  The  salary  of  Berkeley's  successors.  Lords 
Culpeper    and    Howard  of   Effingham   was   £2000.      C.   C.   1681-1685, 

p.  479. 

2  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  XV,  ff.  90, 150 ;  C.  0. 1/43,  7° ;  C.  O.  324/4, 
ff.  63  et  seq.;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  837,  846-848. 

3  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  818.  In  Virginia,  as  in  Jamaica,  but  on  a  much  less 
extensive  scale  than  there,  an  attempt  was  made  at  this  time  to  introduce 
the  Poynings'  system  of  legislation  in  force  in  Ireland.  Ibid.  pp.  809 
et  seq. 

*  Va.  Mag.  XIV,  pp.  360-366. 


^-)ii'^  ^ 


2o6 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


two  clauses,  which  produced  considerable  trouble.^  This 
Act  2  granted  in  perpetuity  to  the  Crown,  to  be  disposed  of 
and  to  be  received  by  it,  the  revenue  arising  from  export 
duties  of  two  shillings  on  every  hogshead  of  tobacco,^  from 
tonnage  dues  of  one  shiUing  threepence  a  ton,  and  from  a 
poll-tax  of  sixpence  on  every  immigrant.  The  clauses, 
which  the  Assembly  had  insisted  upon  adding  to  the  Eng- 
lish draft,  exempted  Virginia  owned  or  built  shipping  from 
the  payment  of  these  taxes. 

In  the  Virginia  statute  book  could  be  found  a  number  of 
similar  laws  discriminating  against  EngHsh  shipping.^  Hith- 
erto, these  had  passed  unnoticed  in  England,  but  such  was 
not  likely  to  be  their  good  fortune  now,  since  only  shortly 
before  this  attention  had  been  directed  to  this  subject  by 

»  Va.  Mag.  XIV,  pp.  366,  367 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  555,  568 ;  ihid. 
1681-1685,  p.  153. 

2  Hening  II,  pp.  466-469. 

'  In  case  the  tobacco  were  exported  in  bulk,  each  500  pounds  had  to 
pay  2s.  An  Act  of  1677  had  abeady  contained  this  provision.  Hening 
II,  p.  413. 

*  An  Act  of  1662  exempted  vessels  whoUy  owned  by  Virginians  from  the 
payment  of  the  25.  and  105.  export  duties,  and  an  Act  of  1669  granted  them 
similar  exemption  from  the  castle  dues.    Hening  II,  pp.  135,  136,  272.    By 
the  Act  of  1677,  however,  this  exemption  was  to  apply  only  to  ships  whoUy 
built  in  Virginia  and  entirely  belonging  to  its  inhabitants.    Ihid.  p.  387. 
The  perpetual  revenue  Act  of  1680  did  not  mention  the  Act  of  1677,  but  pro- 
vided that  the  privileges  granted  by  the  Acts  of  1662  and  1669  should  remain 
in  full  force.     Culpeper  wrote  in  1681  that  the  exemption  granted  to  Vir- 
ginia-owned vessels  was  mserted  through  a  mistake,  but  that  the  exemption 
granted  to  Virginia-built  vessels,  'notwithstanding  your  Lordships'  opinion 
to  the  contrary,  I  stiU  think  most  fitting  (at  least  for  a  time),  and  it  will,  I 
am  confident,  be  insisted  on  by  the  next,  and  by  every  subsequent  Assem- 
bly in  Virginia.'    C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  153. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES    207 

the  msertion  of  a  similarly  objectionable  proviso  in  the 
Jamaica  revenue  law.  The  Lords  of  Trade  'very  much 
disliked'  the  clauses  granting  exceptional  privileges  to 
Virginia  ships,  and  accordingly  recommended  that  these 
should  be  disallowed  by  the  King,  while  in  other  respects 
the  revenue  law  should  be  confirmed.^  On  the  strength  of 
their  report,  an  Order  in  Coimcil  to  this  effect  was  issued  on 
October  14, 1680;  ^  and  on  the  same  day,  the  Lords  of  Trade 
wrote  to  Culpeper  that  they  esteemed  'it  not  only  irregular 
but  inequitable,  that  ships  owned  in  Virginia  should  receive 
more  encouragement  than  those  of  others  of  the  King's 

subjects.'^ 

The  course  of  action  adopted  by  the  government  was  of 
more  than  questionable  legality.  A  Virginia  law  could  be 
disallowed  by  the  Crown,  but  could  not  be  partially  con- 
firmed and  partially  vetoed.  Having  secured  a  permanent 
revenue  in  the  colony,  the  English  government  wisely  would 
not  run  the  risk  of  disallowing  the  entire  Act,  for  it  was 
extremely  doubtful  if  such  a  measure  could  be  secured 
from  any  other  Assembly.  On  the  other  hand,  the  colony 
would  naturally  not  pass  a  special  bill  repealing  the  privi- 
leges granted  to  vessels  owned  or  built  in  Virginia,  as  these 
had  been  the  indispensable  conditions  upon  which  the  Act 
had  originally  been  agreed  to.*  Thus,  in  return  for  a  per- 
manent revenue,  which  in  general  was  ample  for  its  specific 


1  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  612. 

2  P.  C.  Cal.  II,  p.  II. 

3  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  614. 

4  Va.  Mag.  XIV,  pp.  367, 368 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  555- 


vy 


208 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


purposes^'  the  English  government  was  obliged  to  acqui- 
aZ  ""  It'"'"  discrimination  against  English  shipping.^ 
Although  this  preferential  treatment  did  not  lead  to  a  raJd 
growth  of  the  colony's  mercantile  marine,  and  hence  Us 
adverse  effects  on  Enghsh  shipping  were  only  slight,  the 
situation  was  one  that  could  not  but  be  galling  to  the  imperial 
govermnent,  whose  general  poHcy  was  so  largely  based  on 
the  development  of  England's  sea  power 

The  favorite  colonial  project  of  the  Restoration  states- 
men was  the  development  of  Jamaica,  the  chief  fruit  of 
Cromwell  s    miperiahstic    pohcy.    To    this    colony    great 
attention  was  devoted  and  upon  it  money  was  spen^  bfthe 
govermnent  with  an  unwontedly  lavish  hand.    In  ad^ion 
to  appropriating  comparatively  large  sums  for  the  settlement 
and  defence  of  Jamaica,'  the  English  Exchequer  assumed  in 
1663    he  amiual  charge  of  £.500  for  the  island's  ordmaiy 
es^^hshment,  of  which  the  Governor's  salary  absorbed 
iiooo      Some  steps  were,  however,  also  taken  to  create 
an   mdependent  revenue   m  the  colony.    The  Governors 

detaik  of  this  revenue^/S  H  !  '  .      """"''"'  ^'"^  ^^<*^'-    F°' 

m,  p.  X87.  ""  ^'^''""'  *^'  y'"'  ^e  Va.  Hist.  Register 

Virginians  and  imported"  ^Is  e  t^t  bunt  k'^  "  ""'  °"""^  ''^ 

Hening  III,  pp.  ,,,s  ""^^'  "^"  ^"^'  ""  «  ^io'^S  to  Virginia. 

■    p.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  484,  48       In  16,;  S.>  iJ'        t"     u'  "°'-  ''''  ''''  ^*- 
to  raise  his  salat.  t;^^"  t^:^::;^^".:'-^"  '"'"''"^''' 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES    209 

were  instructed  in  1662  and  in  1664  to  reserve  for  the 
Crown  suitable  rents  in  the  land  grants.^  Other  sources 
of  income  were  also  tapped.  In  1670,  the  revenue  arising 
from  duties  on  wines  and  Hquors,  tonnage  dues  on  shipping, 
licenses  to  sell  ale,  quit-rents,  fines,  and  forfeitures  amounted 
to  £1900,  while  the  necessary  disbursements  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  government  were  almost  double  this  amount.^ 

At  this  time  the  conclusion  was  reached  in  England,  that 
the  colony  was  able  to  defray  its  own  expenses  and  that  the 
yearly  allowance  of  £2500  from  the  EngUsh  Exchequer 
should  be  stopped.^  This  decision  was,  however,  premature 
and  could  not  be  carried  into  effect.  In  1673,  Lieutenant- 
Governor  Lynch  wrote  to  the  Council  for  Plantations,^ 
that  the  revenue  of  Jamaica  amounted  to  but  £1800,  while 
the  charges  of  government  were  about  twice  this  sum,  and 
that,  while  he  had  hopes  of  its  improvement,  it  would  not 
for  some  time  answer  the  needs  of  the  colony.  'Young 
colonies,'  he  added,  'like  tender  plants,  should  be  cherished 
and  dealt  easily  with,  it  being  better  to  put  soil  to  their 
roots  than  to  pluck  too  early  fruit/  , 

Four  years  later,  however,  the  English  government, 
pressed  by  its  own  money  difficulties,  had  definitely  arrived 

1  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  259,  664.  The  quit-rents  established  in  Jamaica 
were  not  uniform  as  in  Virginia.    C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  342-344. 

2  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  95.  This  revenue  was  collected  by  royal  officials. 
Ibid.;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  667,  668. 

*  C.  O.  138/1,  f.  113 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  306.  This  amount  was  divided 
as  follows :  £1000  to  the  Governor,  £600  to  the  Deputy-Governor,  £300  to 
the  Major-General,  and  £600  for  the  maintenance  of  the  forts.  Cal.  Treas. 
Books,  167 2-167  5,  P-  575- 

*  C.  O.  1/30,  19 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  477.    Cf.  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  504. 

p 


210 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


at  the  conclusion  that  Jamaica  was  prosperous  enough  to 
be  fuUy  self-supporting,  and  that  its  finances  should  be 
placed  on  a  firm  basis.    At  the  same  time  was  attempted 
an   interesting   constitutional   experiment,    whose   success 
would  have  profoundly  affected  the  Empire's  future.    In 
Jamaica  had  been  estabHshed  virtuaUy  the  same  govern- 
mental system  as  in  Barbados  and  Virginia.    The  Governor, 
Lord  Vaughan,  had  been  empowered  to  summon  an  Assembly 
of  the  freeholders,  who,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Governor  and  Council,  had  authority  to  make  laws  for  the 
colony.i    After  some  deUberation,  it  was  decided  in  1677 
to  change  this  system,  and  to  introduce  that  prevailing  in 
Ireland  under  Poynings'  law  of  1494.2    Under  this  Act, 
the  Irish  Parliament  had  authority  to  pass  only  such  bills 
as  were  submitted  to  it  by  the  Crown  and  the  EngHsh 
Privy  Council.    The  report  of  the  Lords  of  Trade  in  favor  of 
this  constitutional  change  in  Jamaica  was  approved,^  and 

1  These  laws  were  to  be  in  force  for  two  years,  unless  disaUowed  by  the 
Crown,  and  no  longer,  unless  confirmed  by  it.    P.  C.  Cai.  I,  pp.  ^44-747. 

^  H.  A.  L.  Fisher,  England,  1485-1547,  P-  60.  In  1679,  the  Lords  of  Trade 
said  that  this  change  in  Jamaica  was  made  on  account  of  "the  irregular, 
violent,  and  unwarrantable  Proceedings  of  the  Assembly."  P.  C.  Cal! 
I,  p.  827. 

'  They  recommended  that  "for  the  future  no  Legislative  Assembly  be 
called  without  your  Majestys  speciaU  Directions;  but  that  upon  Emer- 
gencys,  the  Governor  do  acquaint  your  Majesty  by  Letters  with  the  Neces- 
sity of  calling  such  an  Assembly,  and  pray  your  Majestys  consent  and  Di- 
rections for  their  meeting.  And  at  the  same  time  do  present  unto  your 
Majesty  a  scheme  of  such  Acts  as  he  shaU  thinke  fit  and  necessary,  that  your 
Majesty  may  take  the  same  into  consideration,  and  returne  them  in  the 
forme  wherein  your  Majesty  shaU  thinke  fit,  that  they  be  enacted."  P  C 
Cal.  I,  p.  745.    See  also  C.  O.  391/2,  f.  27 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  67,  68. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES    211 

Lord  Carlisle,  who  was  appointed  Governor  in  succession  to 
Lord  Vaughan,^  was  instructed  to  introduce  this  new  system. 
Among  the  laws  prepared  in  England  for  submission  to  the 
Jamaica  legislature  was  one  granting  a  perpetual  revenue 
to  the  Crown.  This  proposed  revenue  bill  was  carefully 
drafted. 

The  Lords  of  Trade  had  been  instructed  to  prepare  such 
a  bill  on  the  general  model  of  the  revenue  law  transmitted 
from  Jamaica  two  years  before  this.^  They  carefully  dis- 
cussed the  matter  and,  as  was  usual,  sought  the  expert 
advice  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs,^  who  suggested 
some  alterations  in  the  draft  submitted  to  them.  This  board 
objected  to  the  high  duties  on  beer,  spirits,  and  cider,  as 
these  commodities  were  imported  mainly  from  England,  and 
they  protested  against  the  special  privileges  granted  to 
Jamaica  vessels,  since  "Ships  built  in  any  of  his  Ma'^"'  Plan- 
tacons  are  as  free  in  England  as  ships  built  att  London."^ 
The  bill  was  finally  put  into  satisfactory  shape,  and,  with 
other  laws,  was  taken  to  Jamaica  in  1678  by  the  Earl  of 
Carlisle  for  enactment  by  the  colonial  legislature.^ 

iBrit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  25,120,  ff.  no,  in,  iiS- 

»  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  744;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  178. 

3  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  179,  180.  The  Lords  of  Trade  considered  Sir 
Thomas  Lynch's  Act  of  1672  and  that  passed  under  Lord  Vaughan.  In  the 
latter  they  found  several  'dangerous  innovations,'  such  as  the  appointment 
of  a  collector  by  it,  in  the  place  of  the  receiver  appointed  by  the  Crown. 
They  decided  that  the  revenue  should  be  received  by  the  crown  officer. 

*  C.  O.  1/41,  126;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  193. 

5  Out  of  this  revenue,  CarUsle  was  instructed  to  take  a  salary  of  £2000, 
and  he  was  also  allowed  one-third  of  the  fines,  forfeitures,  and  escheats. 
C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  230.    See  also  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  761-763. 


212 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


{ 


li 


i! 


<ll- 


Mil 


It  was  extremely  unlikely  that  Jamaica  would  submit 
at  least  without  a  severe  struggle,  to  such  an  abridgment 
of  Its  hberties  as  was  implied  in  the  contemplated  new  con- 
stitutional system.    As  in  all  the  colonies,  the  people  here 
were  very  sensitive  to  anything  that  seemed  to  be,  or  was 
in  violation  of  an  Englishman's  traditional  rights.    It  is  not 
surprising  that  Lord  Carlisle  was  completely  unable  to  ac- 
comphsh  his  weU-nigh  impossible  task.    The  Assembly  ob- 
jected to  the  Poynings'  system  as  impracticable,  on  account 
of  Jamaica's  remoteness  from  England,  and  because  it  ren- 
dered the  Governor  absolute.     The  revenue  biU  was  re- 
jected, because  it  was  peipetual,  and  for  fear  that  the  funds 
ansmg  from  it  might  be  diverted  to  other  than  its  intended 
purposes.^ 

The  English  government  was,  however,  not  disposed  to 
yield  without  further  effort.  Lord  CarUsIe  was  instructed 
to  call  another  Assembly  and,  in  case  this  body  also  rejected 
the  laws  transmitted  from  England,  it  was  decided  that  he 
should  be  given  such  ample  powers  to  govern  the  colony,  as 
Governor  Doyley  had  had,  before  a  legislature  had  been 

■?.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  826-833;   C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  367-369     In  ^6,o 

n  BarLoes  .  "c  ^^  ^  ""'""^  ""^  ^^  four-and-a-haU  per  cent 
m  Barbadoes  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  379.  i„  this  connection,  the  Lords  of 
Trade  reported  that  it  could  not  be  diverted,  "since  Provisi  n  b^er  by 

ment.    Bes  des  that  it  is  not  suitable  to  the  Duty  and  Modesty  of  Subiects 
by  your  mS;  tend  "^""^''^l"-  >-"  "-'  P-'-ularly  carried  on 


ENGLISH  FISCAL   SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES     213 

erected  in  Jamaica.^  This  new  Assembly  met,  but,  as 
Lord  Carlisle  had  prophesied,  it  was  not  of  a  more  amenable 
disposition  than  its  predecessor,  and  likewise  refused  to  pass 
the  English-made  laws  submitted  to  it.^  The  Jamaica 
situation  was  naturally  carefully  studied  in  England,^  and 
finally,  in  the  fall  of  1680,  the  government  wisely  receded 
from  its  imtenable  position  and  decided  that,  as  theretofore, 
Jamaica  should  enjoy  in  matters  of  legislation  the  same 
privileges  as  did  Barbados.^  Lord  Carhsle  was  instructed  ^ 
to  summon  the  Assembly,  and,  after  announcing  this  deci- 
sion, to  endeavor  to  procure  the  passage  of  a  perpetual 
revenue  law  according  to  the  draft  sent  from  England,  from 

1  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  833. 

«  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  441-445.  Before  this  news  reached  England,  Sir 
Thomas  Lynch,  who  had  been  very  successful  as  Lieutenant-Governor  of 
Jamaica,  was  consulted  by  the  Lords  of  Trade  and  made  a  spirited  and  able 
defence  of  the  colony,  strongly  condemning  the  attempt  to  change  its  consti- 
tution. He  said:  "It's  probable  the  Assembly  will  reject  the  Laws  thus 
offer'd  them.  Its  certain  there's  an  absolute  necessity  of  a  Revenue,  for  the 
publick  charge  is  great  and  the  debts  many.  It's  possible  the  Coundl  may 
joyn  with  my  Lord  to  Order  y^  Laws  for  y®  Governm*  to  bee  continued; 
but  I  verily  believe  they  will  not  continue  y^  Revenue-Bill,  for  that  they 
think  belongs  peculiar  to  y^  Assembly.  And  if  they  did  doe  it,  it  would 
not  bee  without  process ;  and  I  doubt  the  Judges  &c.  would  quit,  and  Jurys 
constantly  give  against  y^  Officers.  It  would  be  y®  Same  or  worse  if  any 
order  went  hence  to  that  purpose,  and  give  strange  ombrage  to  the  rest  of 
the  Colonies."     C.  O.  1/43,  172;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  456-458. 

»  On  Jan.  18,  1680,  Secretary  Coventry  wrote  to  Carlisle:  "The  Truth 
is  we  are  so  very  much  imployed  in  our  Transactions  here  at  home 
that  we  cannot  with  that  leisure  debate  the  Affaires  of  the  Plantations  as 
we  could  when  you  were  here,  but  yet  a  good  deal  of  time  hath  been  aUotted 
to  Jamaica."  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  25,120,  f.  151. 
*  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  622. 
^  C.  0. 138/3,  ff.  447  et  seq.;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  624,  625. 


I 


214 


I 


ir 


l*n 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


which  no  material  deviations  were  to  be  permitted.  Ample 
assurance  was  given  that  not  only  this  revenue,  but  also 
that  from  the  quit-rents,  would  be  exclusively  and  entirely 
devoted  to  the  pubHc  services  of  Jamaica.^  Thus,  in  return 
for  a  satisfactory  law,  the  Crown  was  wiUing  to  abandon  its 
rights  to  the  quit-rents,  which  were  based  on  the  fact  that 
the  King  was  the  original  lord  of  the  soil.^  Furthermore, 
CarHsle  was  forbidden  to  give  his  assent  to  any  law  exempt- 
ing Jamaica  vessels  from  dues  payable  by  other  English 
ships.^  In  his  private  instructions,  accompanying  these 
public  ones,  the  Governor  was  authorized  to  consent  to  a 
revenue  bill  of  not  less  than  seven  years'  duration,  provided 
a  perpetual  one  were  not  obtainable. 

»  C.  O.  138/3,  £F.  448,  449. 

«  When,  in  1677,  the  Lords  of  Trade  first  took  up  this  question  of  the 
Jamaica  revenue,  they  ordered  that  a  search  should  be  made  in  the  instruc- 
tions to  Governor  Modyford  and  elsewhere,  in  order  to  find  out  what  evidence 
there  was  to  justify  the  disposal  of  the  quit-rents  to  the  uses  of  the  colony. 
C.  O.  391/2,  f.  27;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  67,  68.  In  Jamaica,  as  opposed 
to  Virginia,  New  York,  and  the  Carohnas,  the  quit-rents  formed  part  of  the 
purely  colonial  revenue. 

3  CO.  138/3,  f.  452.    During  this  prolonged  controversy,  Jamaica  was 
forced  in  1679  to  pass  a  temporary  revenue  law,  one  clause  of  which  aroused 
the  ire  of  the  English  government,  because  it  discriminated  against  EngHsh 
shipping.     On  Jan.  16,  1680,  the  Lords  of  Trade  wrote  to  CarUsle,  that 
they  were  much  surprised  at  the  clause  exempting  Jamaica  ships  from  the 
taxes,  as  it  had  been  expressly  omitted  in  the  draft  sent  by  them,  on  the  advice 
of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  to  the  effect  "that  there  might  bee  noe 
difference  made  between  the  Shipping  of  the  built  of  any  other  His  Ma"-^^ 
Plantations,  or  the  Shipping  of  the  built  or  propriety  of  this  Kingdome 
trading  to  and  from  Jamaica  and  the  Shipping  of  that  Island."    C.  O. 
138/3,  ff.  344-358;    C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  470.     In  reply,  Carlisle  wrote 
that  the  Assembly  had  insisted  on  this  clause.    C.   C.   1677-1680    d 
518.  //  >   F- 


ENGLISH   FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND   IMPERIAL  FINANCES    215 

The  main  object  in  view  was  to  make  Jamaica  self-support- 
ing, and  thus  to  lessen  the  burden  on  England's  far  from  over- 
flowing Treasury.^  In  anticipation  of  the  proposed  revenue, 
an  order  was  issued  that  the  garrison  in  Jamaica  be  dis- 
banded and  taken  off  the  estabhshment,  that  the  yearly 
allowance  of  £600  by  the  Exchequer  for  maintaining  the 
forts  in  the  colony  be  discontinued,  and  that  the  salaries 
paid  from  the  same  source  to  the  Governor  and  his  deputy 
be  retrenched.^ 

Although  completely  victorious  in  the  main  constitu- 
tional struggle,  and  as  a  result  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  same 
full  representative  institutions  as  the  other  royal  provinces, 
Jamaica  was  by  no  means  ready  to  comply  with  the  EngHsh 
government's  wishes  regarding  a  revenue  bill.  As  CarHsle 
had  returned  to  England,  the  management  of  this  matter 
devolved  upon  the  Deputy-Governor,  Sir  Henry  Morgan, 
then  commonly  caUed  "Panama  Morgan,''  on  account  of 
his  successful  buccaneering  exploits  on  the  Spanish  Main. 
In  the  summer  of  168 1,  Morgan  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade 

1  THE  JAMAICA  ESTABLISHMENT  IN    1 67  9 


Governor     .    .    . 
Deputy-Governor 
Major-General 
Allowance  for  forts 
Garrison      ..    •    • 


£1000 
£  600 

£  300 
£  600 

£3327 
£5827 


P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  837,  846-848. 

2  C.  O.  138/3,  ff.  441,  442.  CarKsle's  interest  in  the  escheats,  fines,  and 
forfeitures  of  the  colony  was  also  stopped.  In  1681,  the  offices  of  Lieu- 
tenant-Governor and  Major-General  were  discontinued  and  the  two  com- 
panies of  soldiers  were  disbanded.  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  97,  98,  102,  103, 
113,  205. 


\m¥^ 


I 


I 


p\ 


III 

I 


2l6 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


that  the  Assembly  would  meet  soon  again,  but  that  he  feared 
it  would  not  grant  a  perpetual  revenue.^  His  doubts  were 
fully  justified.  After  considerable  delay,  the  Assembly 
passed  a  revenue  bill  of  only  two  years'  duration,  but  Morgan 
induced  them  to  rescind  this  and  to  pass  another  for  seven 
years.  This  Act  obliged  the  Governors  to  give  a  yearfy 
account  of  the  disposal  of  the  revenue  to  the  Assembly. 
This  provision  would  have  made  the  annual  meeting  of  the 
legislature  automatic,  without  the  necessity  of  the  Crown  or 
the  Governor  summoning  it,  and  naturally  was  considered 
highly  prejudicial  to  the  royal  prerogative.^  Furthermore, 
the  Assembly  tacked  to  the  revenue  bill  a  number  of  other 
measures,  thus  giving  the  English  government  no  option  but 
to  confirm  or  to  disallow  one  and  all.^  The  Assembly  too 
shrewdly  argued  that  England,  in  her  anxiety  to  secure  a 
revenue,  would  confirm  the  tacked  bills  also.*  In  this,  how- 
ever, they  overshot  the  mark. 

While  these  events  were  happening  in  Jamaica,  the  English 
government  in  its  difficulty  turned  to  Sir  Thomas  Lynch 
and  appointed  him  Governor  of  Jamaica.^    This  was  a 

»  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  72. 

'  Ibid.  p.  282. 

'  Ibid.  pp.  121,  122,  137,  183,  184,  204. 

*  The  instructions  for  the  passage  of  a  revenue  law  were  issued  in  Novem- 
ber of  1680,  but  the  Assembly  passed  this  bill  only  a  year  later.  In  order 
to  force  it  to  take  action,  the  English  government  declared,  in  October 
of  1 68 1,  that  all  other  laws  passed  by  this  Assembly  should  be  null  and  void, 
imless  a  revenue  bill  were  passed  before  the  arrival  of  Lynch,  who  in  the 
meanwhile  had  been  appointed  to  succeed  Carlisle  as  Governor.  Ibid. 
p.  128;  P.  C.  Cal.  II,  pp.  25,  26. 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  87. 


ENGLISH  FISCAL   SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES     217 

step  well  calculated  to  bring  matters  to  an  equitable  settle- 
ment. Lynch  had  already  displayed  conspicuous  ability  in 
governing  the  colony ;  later,  he  had  fearlessly  opposed  the 
attempt  under  Governor  CarHsle  to  deprive  the  colonial 
Assembly  of  its  customary  powers.  As  a  result,  he  enjoyed 
to  the  full  the  confidence  of  the  colony.  His  instructions,^ 
issued  in  September  of  1681,  were  practically  the  same  as 
those  given  to  Carlisle  the  preceding  year  —  to  secure  a 
revenue  granted  to  the  Crown  in  perpetuity  or  for  at  least 
seven  years,  and  to  assure  the  people  that  not  only  these 
funds,  but  the  quit-rents  as  well,  would  be  wholly  devoted 
to  the  colony's  pubHc  services.  Until  such  a  measure  was 
passed,  he  was  further  mstructed  to  refuse  his  assent  to  all 
other  Acts  of  the  legislature. 

Lynch  arrived  in  Jamaica  in  the  early  summer  of  1682, 
but  delayed  taking  any  steps  in  this  matter,  until  he  should 
hear  from  the  English  government  about  the  revenue  bill 
passed  the  preceding  year  by  Morgan's  Assembly.^  'The 
people,'  he  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade,  'are  well  enough 
disposed,  but  by  letters  from  England  and  evil  designs  here 
have  been  spirited  into  extraordinary  distrusts  and  jeal- 
ousies. So  I  conclude  that  they  will  do  nothing  till  they 
hear  from  you,  and  but  Httle  after.'  ^  When  the  Assembly 
met  in  the  fall  of  1682,  although  still  without  direct  mstruc- 
tions  from  England  on  this  point.  Lynch  tactfully  pointed 
out  the  valid  objections  to  their  proceedings  during  the  past 
year,  and  told  them  plainly  that  '  they  must  not  expect  the 


i 


1  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  113-115. 
'  Ibid.  p.  282. 


2  Ibid.  p.  253.    Cf.  p.  282. 


2l8 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


I' 


King  to  pass  the  laws  while  tacked  to  the  Revenue  Bill, 
nor  to  allow  Assemblies  to  be  convened  by  their  own  acts.'  ^ 
He  succeeded  in  inducing  the  legislature  to  pass  a  satisfac- 
tory revenue  biH  which,  while  free  from  the  objectionable 
features  of  the  preceding  measure,  was  likewise  but  of  the 
limited  duration  of  seven  years.^    On  receipt  of  this  news, 

1  Shortly  after  Jamaica  had  passed  the  revenue  biU  of  1682,  the  Lords 
of  Trade  took  under  their  consideration  the  Act  of  the  preceding  year. 
They  objected  to  the  provisions  of  the  Act,  and  to  the  fact  that  the  other  laws 
had  been  tacked  to  it.    They  decided  that  it  should  be  disaUowed,  and  that 
if  Jamaica  '  refuse  to  pass  a  Revenue  Act  the  Assembly  is  to  be  warned  that 
the  laws  of  England  empower  the  King  to  lay  tonnage  and  poundage/ 
C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  315,  316, 321,  322.    This  threat  involved  an  interesting 
legal  point.     The  EngHsh  subsidy  of  1660  (12  Ch.  II,  c.  4)  imposed  import 
and  export  duties  in  the  realm  and  its  dominions.    The  addition  of  the 
words  in  itahcs  was  probably  due  to  carelessness;  at  all  events,  no  attempt 
was  made  to  collect  these  duties  in  the  colonies.    In  1680,  however,  it  was 
suggested  that  the  Jamaica  difficulty  could  be  solved  by  coUectin'g  these 
duties  there,  but  the  expediency  of  this  course  was  very  doubtful,  and  nothing 
was  done.     C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  497,  498,  520,  521. 

2  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  296-298,  300-303,  307-310.    For  an  interesting 
contemporary  account  of  the  passage  of  this  act,  with  valuable  documents, 

see  A  Narrative  of  Affairs Jamaica  (London,  1683).    Lynch  did  not 

think  a  perpetual  revenue  essential.  On  Aug.  29,  1682,  he  wrote  to  the 
Lords  of  Trade:  'You  judged  rightly  for  the  King's  honour  that  no  short 
Bill  of  Revenue  should  be  accepted,  but,  with  your  leave,  I  think  a  perpetual 
one  against  his  interest.  For,  without  their  Act,  I  doubt  not  to  find  enough, 
after  some  considerable  time,  to  pay  the  Governor,  Chief  Justice,  and  Au- 
ditor-General. As  to  the  fortifications  and  other  contingencies,  they  are 
the  Island's  concern  and  must  be  neglected  at  its  peril.'  C.  C.  1681-1685, 
p.  282.  After  the  passage  of  the  revenue  bUl,  on  Oct.  8,  1682,  Lynch  wrote 
to  the  Lords  of  Trade :  'The  revenue  is  for  seven  years,  though  I  told  the 
Assembly  that  they  might  pass  it  for  six  if  they  would.  A  perpetual  bill 
I  would  not  suggest,  as  I  could  not  put  them  into  the  train  of  rejecting  my 
proposals ;  moreover,  I  thought  that  you  will  certainly  send  back  their  laws 
(those  tacked  to  the  revenue  bill  of  1681),  and  that  on  receiving  them  they 


ENGLISH  FISCAL   SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES     219 

the  English  government  expressed  great  satisfaction,  and 
confirmed  nearly  all  the  other  Jamaica  laws/  but  at  the  same 
time  they  instructed  Lynch  to  do  his  best '  to  render  the  Act 
of  Revenue  perpetual,  representing  that  the  King  may  thus 
be  ready  to  confirm  their  laws  for  more  than  seven  years.'  ^ 

When  the  Jamaica  Assembly  met  again  in  the  fall  of 
1683,  Lynch  congratulated  it  on  the  success  of  its  *  discreet 
behaviour, '  and  in  reply  the  Speaker  said  that,  *  after  the 
King's  gracious  favour  we  shall  have  little  more  to  do  but 
every  man  to  sit  down  imder  his  own  vine,  studying  to  do 
our  own  happiness,  and  pray  for  His  Majesty's  long  and 
happy  reign.' '  Despite  this  good  feeling.  Lynch  encoun- 
tered some  difficulty,*  but  ultimately  succeeded  in  having 
the  revenue  bill  extended  to  a  period  of  twenty-one  years 
in  all.^ 

This  revenue  arose  from  licenses  for  taverns  and  from 
an  impost  on  spirituous  liquors,  and  in  addition  the  Crown 
definitely  abandoned  to  the  colony  the  quit-rents,  which  else- 
where were  regarded  as  in  the  nature  of  a  royal  perquisite.^ 

will  themselves  offer  it.    It  can  never  be  done  otherwise ;  pressmg  it  is,  the 
certain  way  not  to  have  it.'    Ibid.  p.  310. 

1  Ibid.  pp.  369,  397-398,  400 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  II,  pp.  46-48. 

2  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  386. 

3  Ibid.  pp.  486,  487. 

<  The  main  opposition  came  from  what  Lynch  called  *that  little,  dnmken, 
silly  party  of  Sir  Henry  Morgan's.'    Ibid.  p.  532. 

^Ibid.  pp.  487,  SCI,  506,  518,  522,  532.  In  return,  the  laws  passed  by 
this  Assembly  were,  with  one  exception,  confirmed  by  Order  in  Council  for 
21  years.    Ibid.  p.  487. 

« In  1682,  Lynch  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade :  'I  think  that  you  should 
first  see  the  rental  of  the  quit-rents  and  consider  whether  the  King  should  not 
be  often  thanked  for  so  great  a  bounty.'    Ibid.  p.  310. 


\> 


I 


li 


220 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


^e  znoneys  were  received  by  a  royal  official,  the  Re- 
ceiver-General, who  was  supervised  by  a  DeputC-AudiJ 
also  appointed  from  England  and  th.  .  7  ' 

mittf^^  tr.  fk    o  '  '^^  accounts  were  sub- 

mitted to  the  Governor  in  CouncO  '■    Ont  ^f  .., 

was  paid  the  salary  of  the  Govlt,^  t^  c^o^  = 
the  forts  m  fit  condition  and  other  items  ^^ 

subsequent  penod,  after  the  Revolution  of  1688/0  it 
yielded  an  income  adeauate  for  fi,.  ^' 

forward  T.™  •  ^^"^""^^^  ^°^  these  purposes.  Hence- 
forward Jamaica  was  no  longer  a  burden  on  the  English 
Exchequer.    Thu<;  in  fh;.      i  .  ^^giisti 

Indies  and  in  V        •       .    ^  ^°^'  ^'  ^  '^'  ^^^^^^  West 

established  revenue,  outTwhich  ^ ^Z^^ 
of  Its  representatives  in  Jamaica,  and  thus  preven  t"m 
from  becommg  dependent  upon  the  colonial  Igisll^ 

In  comiection  with  the  movement  to  reorrani  " "he 
financial  systems  of  the  crown  colonies  and  to  ^c  th  1 
on  a  pennanent  basis,  there  was  created  in  x68o  a  L  C 
penal  office,  whose  function  was  to  audit  their  revenuelaTd 
e^ndituxes.^  In  that  year  William  Blathwayt,  an  aTle 
offiaal  with  considerable  experience  in  colon^'  ratt'^ 

•  C.  C.  1681-168S,  pp.  283, 473,  501. 
In  1684  this  salary  was  £2000.     C  C  tfiSe  ,/;os 

'  itu.  X68X-.685,  PP.  657,  683.  "''''  ^^- '°'-  '^'^• 

of  2:itZ%H::::T,T:^''. "'  ^--^-^^--l  of  the  Revenues 

^n .  ^^^^:^:::^i;^T^-:^^fi  »„  the 
Z  z^t:::'  '''•  '''•  ^'-  ^'-  --  -^-  ^-  ---  m £ 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM   AND   IMPERIAL  FINANCES    221 

was  appointed  Surveyor  and  Auditor  General  of  all  His 
Majesty's  revenues  in  America.^  His  salary  of  £500  was 
charged  to  the  royal  provinces,  Virginia  paying  £100  and 
the  West  Indies  the  balance.^  From  Blathwayt's  juris- 
diction was  naturally  excepted  tjie  plantation  duties  of  1673, 
because  the  Act  of  ParUament  imposing  them  had  spe- 
cifically entrusted  this  matter  to  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Customs.  Thus  this  new  official  as  such  had  no  direct  con- 
nection with  the  work  of  enforcing  the  laws  of  trade  and 
navigation.^ 

Except  in  Virginia,  where  there  was  already  an  auditor 
appointed  by  the  Crown,^  Blathwayt  was  authorized  and 

»  Blathwayt,  Journal  I,  ff.  1-9 ;  Va.  Mag.  IV,  pp.  43-49 ;  Mass.  Col.  Rec. 
V,  pp.  521-526. 

*  Barbados  and  Jamaica  each  contributed  £150  and  the  Leeward  Islands 
£100.  Later,  when  the  number  of  royal  provinces  had  increased,  the 
Auditor's  income  was  enlarged,  as  he  was  in  several  instances  allowed  a 
percentage  on  their  revenues.  In  1688,  Randolph  wrote  from  Boston  to 
Blathwayt  that  he  had  proposed  the  allowance  of  a  fee  of  5  per  cent,  but 
that  this  was  as  yet  not  settled.  He  added,  that  Graham  of  the  New 
York  Coimcil  told  him,  that  there  they  had  settled  £100  on  Blathwayt. 
Goodrick,  Randolph  VI,  p.  251.  In  1682,  Cranfield  wrote  to  Blathwayt 
that  an  order  had  been  passed  in  New  Hampshire  allowing  him  2i  per  cent 
of  the  revenue  there.  This  revenue  did  not,  however,  exceed  £100.  Ibid. 
pp.  120,  122, 

^  He  was  solely  interested  in  this  matter,  because  the  revenue  that  ac- 
crued to  the  Crown  from  forfeitures  for  violations  of  these  laws  was  under 
his  jurisdiction.  Thus  Blathwayt's  deputy  in  Massachusetts,  Randolph, 
was  empowered  "to  inspect,  examine,  and  state  all  accounts  of  all  such 
rents,  revenues,  prizes,  ffines,  escheats,  seizures,  fiforfeitures"  etc.  Mass. 
Col.  Rec.  V,  pp.  526-529. 

*  In  1675,  Nathaniel  Bacon,  Sr.,  had  been  appointed  Auditor  of  the  Vir- 
ginia accounts  in  succession  to  Edward  Digges.  Bacon's  rights  were  safe- 
guarded in  Blathwayt's  patent,  but  it  was  provided  therein  that,  on  the 


/ 


\, 


I 


I' 


"\ 


If 


f'l 


!l 


222 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


instructed  to  appoint  deputies  in  the  crown  colonies.  Those 
appointed  by  him  as  a  rule  occupied  in  addition  some  other 
colonial  post.  The  Jamaica  deputy,  Reginald  Wilson, 
was  also  the  colony's  Naval  Officer,  and  the  deputy  in  New 
England  was  the  well-known  Collector  of  the  Customs 
Edward  Randolph.!  These  deputies  audited  the  colonial 
accounts,  which  were  then  passed  upon  by  the  Governor 
and  Council,  and  ultimately  sent  to  Blathwayt,'  who  in  his 
journals  kept  a  careful  record  of  these  fiscal  detaUs.  To  a 
great  extent,  however,  Blathwayt's  work  was  perfunctory; 

expiration  of  Bacon's  grant,  the  Virginia  office  should  be  annexed  to  that 
of  the  Auditor-General.    Despite  this,  in  1687,  William  Byrd  was  appointed 
by  the  Enghsh  Treasury  to  succeed  Bacon.    The  rights  of  these  two  Vir- 
guna  Auditors  were,  however,  attacked  by  Robert  Ayleway,  who  in  1678 
had  obtamed  letters  patent  for  this  place.     Owing  to  the  opposition  of 
Governor  Culpeper,  Ayleway  was  unable  to  enforce  his  patent  against  Bacon, 
but  on  ^e  appointment  of  Byrd  in  1687,  he  revived  his  claim.    Although  the 
legal  authonties  could  find  no  flaw  in  it,  difficulties  were  put  in  his  way  and 
he  made  terms  with  Byrd,  to  whom  he  assigned  his  grant.    When  Bacon 
was  appointed  Auditor,  he  was  allowed  5  per  cent  for  his  work.    At  that  time 
the  revenue  wa^  received  by  a  Treasurer,  but  the  Governor  and  CouncU, 
behevmg  this  office  to  be  superfluous,  consoUdated  it  with  that  of  the  Auditor 
and  raised  Bacon's  fee  to  7i  per  cent,  as  compensation  for  the  extra  work. 
Thus  the  Auditor  acted  as  well  as  the  Receiver-General  of  the  provincial 
revenue,  receivmg  it  from  the  collectors  and  paying  it  out  on  warrants  from 
t!  M ''Z,  ""'"•    ^'^'"'^^y''  J°"™al  I,  f.  .79;  II,  ff.  3,_4o. 

Va  Mag.  XIV,  pp.  .70,  .71,  368 ;  Va.  Hist.  Register  HI,  pp.  18.,  183 ;  P.  c! 
Cal.  I,  p.  864;  II,  p.  136;  C.  C.  1689-169.,  pp.  69,  70,  72,  77,  83;  Cal. 
Treas.  Papers  1676-1679,  pp.  806,  807;  Chahners,  Opinions  of  Eminent 
Lawyers  (Burhngton,  1858),  pp.  160,  161. 

•  Blathwayt,  Journal  I,  ff.  74,  75,  88,  109,  238-240;  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  V, 
pp.  526-529- 

'  For  the  exact  procedure  in  Jamaica,  see  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP.  28,  47, 
501,  502.  ^^      •''  *'■*' 


ENGLISH  FISCAL  SYSTEM  AND  IMPERIAL  FINANCES    223 

and  necessarily  so,  smce  but  slight  control  over  the  mcome 
and  expenditure  of  the  crown  colonies  could  be  exercised 
from  so  distant  a  centre  as  England.  Everything  depended 
upon  the  honesty  and  vigilance  of  the  governors,  deputy- 
auditors,  and  local  treasurers.  Hence  Blathwayt's  post  of 
Auditor-General  tended  to,  and  ultimately  did,  become  one 
of  those  sinecures  of  no  public  utility,  which  were  the  bane 
of  the  old  administrative  regime,  and  which,  while  not 
numerous  m  the  colonial  service,  tended  in  a  mild  way  to 
breed  discontent  in  the  colonies. 


I     \ 


!    t 
1 


I    i' 


i4ii 


III 


I 


CHAPTER  IV 

CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY 

Parliament  and  Crown  —  The  Privy  Council  and  its  Committees  —  The 
Secretaries  of  State  —  The  Council  for  Foreign  Plantations  of  1660  — 
The  Coimcil  for  Trade  of  1660 — Its  revival  in  1668  and  that  of  the  Co- 
lonial Coimcil  in  1670 — The  Coimcil  for  Trade  and  Plantations  of  1672 

—  The  Lords  of  Trade  —  The  Admiralty  and  the  Colonies  —  The 
Treasury  and  the  Conamissioners  of  the  Customs  —  The  Royal  Governor 

—  The  naval  ofl&cers  —  The  collectors  of  the  customs  —  The  Surveyor- 
General  of  the  Customs  —  Quarrel  between  GUes  Bland  and  Governor 
Berkeley  of  Virginia  —  The  colonial  admiralty  courts  —  The  use  of  the 
navy  to  suppress  illegal  trading. 

The  central  fact  in  the  history  of  the  English  Empire 
during  the  Restoration  era  was  the  creation  of  a  compre- 
hensive and  symmetrical  system  regulating  colonial  trade. 
This  commercial  code  was  the  work  of  Parliament,  and 
marked  the  definite  establishment  of  its  claim  to  legislative 
power  in  imperial  matters.  The  first  Stuarts  had  succeeded 
in  denying  Parliament's  competence  in  such  questions/ 
but  the  collapse  of  the  monarchy  in  the  Civil  War  inevitably 
imphed,  at  least  for  the  time  being,  parliamentary  juris- 
dictions over  the  American  dominions.  This  result  of  the 
confusion  and  flux  of  the  Interregnum  decades  was  accepted 
without  contest  by  the  Restoration  government,  for  Charles 
II  tacitly  waived  his  ancestors'  claims  to  exclusive  authority 
over  the  colonies.  As  a  consequence,  the  Crown  was  de- 
prived of  some  powers,  but  in  reaUty  its  imperial  duties  and 

1  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  301,  302. 
224 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  225 

functions  increased  greatly  during  the  Restoration  era. 
For  the  work  of  Parliament  was  necessarily  purely  legis- 
lative, and  the  burden  of  enforcing  the  new  commercial 
system,  embodied  in  the  half  dozen  fundamental  statutes 
of  the  reign,  fell  upon  the  Crown.  In  addition,  these  laws 
of  trade  and  navigation  obliged  the  English  executive  to 
appoint  royal  officials  within  the  confines  of  the  proprietary 
and  charter  colonies,  whose  inhabitants  had  hitherto  not 
been  normally  in  direct  relations  with  the  organs  of  the 
home  government.  It  was  the  colonial  system  enacted  by 
Parhament,  that  forced  the  Crown  to  break  in  upon  the 
feudal  barricades  created  by  the  early  colonial  charters. 

Another  factor  also  considerably  expanded  the  sphere  of 
the  Crown's  activities  in  colonial  administration.  This 
was  the  great  increase  in  the  number  of  royal  provinces. 
The  fundamental  trend  in  the  constitutional  development 
of  the  old  Empire  was  the  gradual  substitution  of  crown 
colonies  for  those  of  the  proprietary  and  charter  type. 
Under  the  first  Stuarts,  Virginia  was  the  only  royal  colony ; 
in  the  "Old  Dominion"  alone  did  crown -appointed  officials 
direct  the  course  of  local  self-government.  The  proprietors 
of  the  other  colonies,  whether  corporations  or  individuals, 
enjoyed  under  certain  broad  restrictions,  defined  in  their 
charters,  virtually  complete  powers  of  government.  Al- 
ready under  the  first  Stuarts,  apart  from  the  forfeiture 
of  the  Virginia  Company's  patent  in  1624,  distinct  inroads 
had  been  made  into  this  anomalous  and  unworkable  system 
of   semi-feudal   independent  jurisdictions.^    Further  steps 

*  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  328-333. 
Q 


#! 


1 

i  ::  ' 

1 

226 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


in  this  direction  were  taken  during  the  Commonwealth,  when 
a  number  of  the  colonies  in  the  West  Indies  were  forcibly 
seized  from  their  proprietor  in  consequence  of  their  overt 
espousal  of  the  royaUst  cause. 

This  movement  advanced  at  a  greatly  accelerated  pace, 
when  the  Enghsh  monarchy  was  restored  in  1660.    Barba- 
dos and  the  Leeward  Islands  were  definitively  organized 
as  royal  provinces  on  the  Virginia  model,  and  conquered 
Jamaica,  hitherto  governed  on  a  mihtary  basis,  Ukewise 
received  the^  same  pohtical  organization.    In  all  of  these 
colonies  were  firmly  established  balanced  constitutions ;  the 
people  were  represented  in   the   local  assembhes,  whose 
actions  were  controlled  by  royal  governors,  assisted  by 
other  officials  likewise  appointed  from  England.     In  addi- 
tion, towards  the  end  of  the  Stuart  period,  the  number  of 
Crown  colonies  was  greatly  enlarged.     The  Bermuda  Com- 
pany was  deprived  of  the  islands,  which  it  had  settled.    All 
the  New  England  colonies  lost  their  charters  and  were 
joined  in  an  artificial  union  with  New  York,  which  on  the 
accession  of  James  II  had  ahready  by  this  very  fact  become 
a  royal  province.^ 

Thus  the  enactment  of  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation 
and  the  extension  of  the  system  of  royal  provinces  added 
greatly  to  the  work  of  the  Enghsh  executive.  But  apart 
from  these  general  causes  increasing  the  normal  volume  of 
colonial  business  after  the  Restoration,  there  naturally  were 
at  that  very  time  an  exceptionally  large  number  of  impor- 
tant colonial  questions  that  pressed  for  immediate  decision. 

»  The  Jerseys  were  also  included  in  this  abortive  arrangement. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  227 

After  the  widespread  dislocation  produced  by  the  Inter- 
regnum, there  had  to  be  a  settlement  in  the  Empire,  as  well 
as  in  England,  Ireland,  and  Scotland.  A  host  of  diflicult 
questions  crowded  the  government.  In  the  first  place,  should 
Jamaica  be  restored  to  Spain,  Charles's  friend  in  misfortime, 
and,  if  retained,  how  should  it  be  governed  ?  Then,  should 
Nova  Scotia,  which  Cromwell  had  seized  from  France,  be 
kept;  and,  if  so,  should  the  Temple  charter  of  1656  covering 
this  territory  be  recognized  as  vaHd  ?  ^  What  attitude  should 
be  taken  towards  the  Puritan  colonies  of  New  England, 
which  all  but  in  name  were  independent  pohtical  entities, 
and  looked  askance  at  the  restoration  of  the  monarchy  in 
England?  What,  if  any,  recognition  should  be  given  to 
the  claims  of  the  Kirkes  to  Newfoundland  imder  the  patent 
of  1637,  which  Cromwell  had  superseded  when  he  appointed 
Commissioners  to  take  charge  of  these  fishing  settlements  P^ 
Finally,  what  should  be  done  with  the  Caribbee  Islands, 
which  the  Commonwealth  government  had  taken  from 
the  Earl  of  Carhsle,  who  had  been  their  proprietor  in  virtue 
of  the  charter  of  1627? 

The  ultimate  decision  in  all  these  matters  rested  with 
the  Crown,  which  still  retained  a  large  measure  of  its  pre- 
rogative and  was  the  source  of  all  executive  authority.  Its 
work  was  performed  primarily  through  the  Privy  Council, 
which  was  the  centre  of  the  administrative  system.    This 

1  C.  C.  1574-1660,  pp.  444,  447,  484,  496,  497 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  305,  316, 

321-323. 

2  C.  C.  1 574-1660,  p.  481.  In  addition,  Lord  Baltimore  asserted  his 
claims  to  Avalon  in  Newfoundland  on  the  strength  of  the  charter  of  1623. 
Ibid.  pp.  481,  482 ;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  157. ' 


il 


■*^'*— —  m  ,a» 


*   A  . 


!i|if 


i' 


Ml 


iN 


I  :  * 


fry 


228 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


was  a  consultative  and  executive  body,  composed  of  the 
great  state  officials  and  of  a  varying  number  of  men  of  ex- 
ceptional prominence  and  standing,  who  fully  enjoyed  the 
royal  confidence.     Around  the  King  and  the  Privy  Council 
were  grouped  the  great  administrative  departments,  but  as 
yet  no  special  colonial  office  had  been  created.    Hence  this 
mass  of  colonial  business  naturally  came  before  the  Privy 
Council;  and,  in  order  to  cope  with  it,  recourse  was  had  to 
the  committee  system  that  had  already  been  developed  under 
the  first  Stuarts.    In  1660,  a  number  of  merchants  and  others 
interested  in  the  West  Indies  and  opposed  to  the  Carlisle 
patent  petitioned  the  King,  that  Colonel  James  Russell  be 
continued  in  the  government  of  Nevis.    This  petition  was 
referred  to  the  Privy  Council  and  was  read  before  it  on 
July  4,  1660,  a  week  after  its  receipt.^    On  the  same  day,  in 
connection  with  this  petition,  whichraised  the  entire  question 
of  the  future  disposal  of  the  West  Indies,  an  Order  in  Coun- 
cil was  issued  appointing  a  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council 
to  dehberate  thereon  and  further  to  meet  every  Monday  and 
Thursday  "to  receive,  heare,  examine  &  dehberate  upon  peti- 
cons,  proposicons,  Memorialls,  or  other  Addresses  w".*^  shal 
be  presented  or  brought  in  by  any  person  or  persons  con- 
cerning the  plantacons,"  and  then  to  report  to  the  Privy 
Council.2    The  members  of  this  committee  were  in  the  main 
great  officers  of  state,  such  as  the  Earl  of  Manchester,  then 

1  C.  C.  1 574-1660,  p.  482.    A  similar  petition  in  favor  of  the  retention 
of  Governor  Ward  in  St.  Kitts  was  also  received.    Ibid. 

2  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  I,  f .  63 ;   P.  C.  Cal  I,  p.  295 ;  N.  Y.  Col. 
Doc.  Ill,  p.  30. 


M 


\ 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  229 

Lord  Chamberlain,  the  Earl  of  Southampton,  then  Lord 
Treasurer,  the  two  Secretaries  of  State,  Nicholas  and  Mor- 
ice.^  Among  other  matters,  this  body  carefully  investigated 
the  question  of  reviving  the  Carlisle  patent  of  1627  covering 
the  Caribbee  Islands,^  and  also  the  Temple  claim  to  Nova 
Scotia  based  on  the  charter  of  1656.^  In  addition  to  this 
general  committee,  special  committees  of  the  Privy  Council 
were  also  appointed  for  specific  purposes.  In  September  of 
1660,  the  colonial  committee  was  instructed  to  inform  itself 
of  the  state  of  Jamaica  and  to  report  to  the  King ;  but, 
somewhat  over  a  month  later,  a  special  committee  was 
formed  and  the  Jamaica  business  was  entrusted  to  it.'*    In 

1  In  1 66 1,  Sir  George  Carteret,  the  Vice-Chamberlain,  was  added  to  this 
committee  and  to  that  for  the  affairs  of  New  England.  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  309. 
In  1662,  the  Lord  Chancellor  Clarendon,  the  Earl  of  Portland,  and  the  Earl 
of  Sandwich  were  also  appointed  to  serve  on  this  body.  P.  C.  Register, 
Charles  II,  III,  f.  127 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  336.     Cf.  C.  C.1661-1668,  no.  847. 

2  On  July  16,  1660,  several  Lords  of  the  Council,  sitting  *  as  a  Committee 
touching  the  Plantations,'  heard  Lord  Willoughby  on  his  claims  to  the  Caribbee 
Islands  and  Surinam,  and  also  the  merchants  and  planters  opposing  him. 
"It  was  ordered  by  his  Ma"-,  afterwards  cominge  &  sitting  in  Councill," 
that  Willoughby  and  the  planters  should  "attend  the  Comittee  for  Plan- 
tacons"  on  July  26,  and  that  the  committee  should  report  to  the  King. 
After  this  hearing,  the  committee  stated  that  they  could  not  make  "any 
cleare  or  satisfactory  Report  to  his  Majestie  or  Councill, "  until  they  had  fur- 
ther investigated  the  matter.  On  Aug.  2,  the  question  was  again  considered, 
and  on  Aug.  20,  1660,  the  committee  reported  imfavor  of  restoring  Wil- 
loughby to  his  rights  as  leaseholder  under  the  proprietor.  C.  O.  1/14,  20; 
P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  296,  297 ;  C.  C.  1 574-1660,  pp.  483,  484,  486,  488,  489. 

'  C.  C.  1 574-1660,  pp.  484-486,  488. 

*  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  298,  299.  The  original  members  of  this  body  were  the 
Duke  of  Albemarle,  Arthur  Annesley,  and  the  Secretaries  of  State,  Morice 
and  Nicholas,  of  whom  only  the  first  was  not  a  member  of  the  larger  com- 
mittee.   Subsequently,  the  Duke  of  York,  the  Earl  of  Sandwich,  Sir  George 


f 


\ 


II 


il  I 


(  ' 


■I 


230 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


1661,  was  constituted  also  a  similar  special  committee  for 
the  affairs  of  New  England/  and  in  the  same  year  another 
committee  was  appointed  to  consider  the  French  demand 
for  the  restitution  of  Nova  Scotia.^ 

The  work  of  the  Privy  Council  and  its  various  com- 
mittees was   mainly  deliberative;  its  decisions  were   car- 
ried into    actual    effect    by    one    of    the    Secretaries    of 
State  — at  the  outset,  in  1661  and  1662,  by  Sir  Edward 
Nicholas,  to  whose  department  the  colonies  were  assigned. 
But  Nicholas  was  by  no  means  minister  for  the  colonies 
in  the  modem  sense.    The  Secretaries  of  State  had  as  yet 
no   clearly  defined  independent  position,   and   were  still 
attached  and  subordinate  to  the  Privy  Council.    They  were 
in  the  nature  of  its  executive  officers,  and  also  served  as 
intermediaries  between  it  and  the  King.    Nicholas  brought 
petitions  addressed  to  the  King  before  the  Privy  Council, 
prepared  the  material  for  its  consideration,  kept  rough 
minutes  of  its  proceedings  for  his  own  use,  and  saw  that  its 
orders  and  those  of  the  Crown,  were  executed.^ 

Obviously,  the  Privy  Council  and  its  committees  could  by 
no  means  do  full  justice  to  the  many  and  intricate  colonial 
questions  that  demanded  more  or  less  immediate  settlement. 
Its  active  members,  upon  whom  this  duty  devolved,  were 

Carteret,  and  DenziU  Holies  were  added  to  it.  lUd.  See  also  C.  C.  1574- 
1660,  pp.  491,  492 ;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  839,  847 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  320, 
384- 

'  P-  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  308,  309,  344;  c.  C.  1661^1668,  nos.  ^d>,  91. 

^  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  316.     See  also  ibid.  p.  305  and  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  112. 

'  C.  C.  1574-1660,  pp.  489,  490;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  12,  19,  26,  37, 
58,  76,  78,  ^Sy  87,  91,  95,  133,  216,  222,  309. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  231 

at  the  same  time  the  great  officers  of  state,  and  had  to  super- 
intend the  extensive  readjustment  in  English  affairs  that 
followed  inevitably  in  the  wake  of  the  restoration  of  the 
monarchy.  Immersed  in  this  important  work,  which  directly 
affected  so  many  vital  national  and  private  interests,  they 
naturally  could  not  give  adequate  attention  to  colonial 
matters.  Moreover,  no  matter  how  much  these  statesmen 
might  be  impressed  with  the  importance  of  imperial  prob- 
lems, they  unfortunately  brought  no  detailed  expert  knowl- 
edge to  their  solution.  Hence  the  demand  immediately 
arose  that  there  be  created  an  advisory  body,  composed 
in  part,  at  least,  of  experts,  which  should  devote  its  entire 
attention  to  colonial  questions.  Some  tentative  steps  in 
this  direction  had  already  been  taken  by  the  first  Stuarts 
and  by  the  Cromwellian  government.^  The  cumbersome 
administrative  machinery  devised  for  this  purpose  during 
the  Interregnum  was,  however,  far  from  satisfactory,  and 
the  creation  of  "a  select  Councill  solely  dedicated  to  the 
inspection,  care  and  charge  of  America"  was  at  that  time 
strongly  advocated  by  a  group  of  Englishmen  interested 
especially  in  the  West  Indies.  These  men,  of  whom  the 
chief  were  Thomas  Povey  and  Martin  Noell,  renewed 
their  proposals  very  shortly  after  Charles's  entry  into 
London.^ 

In  view  of  the  congestion  of  business,  it  is  not  surprising 
that  they  met  with  a  favorable  response  and,  on  December  i, 
1660,  was  issued  the  formal  commission  creating  a  special 

»  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  307-316,  418-423. 

2  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  ff.  272-275.    C/.  iff.  270,  271. 


I  . 


1 1 


i 


II 


232 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Council  for  Foreign  Plantations.^    In  this  body  were  rep- 
resented various  distinct    groups    and    interests.    Among 
the  statesmen  were  the  Lord  Chancellor   Clarendon,  the 
Lord  Treasurer  Southampton,  the  Lord  Chamberlain  Man- 
chester,2  the  two  Secretaries  of  State,  and  Sir  Anthony 
Ashley  Cooper,  better  known  to  fame  as  the  first  of  the  three 
celebrated  Earls  of  Shaftesbury.    All  of  these  men  were 
prominent  members  of  the  Privy  Council ;  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Clarendon,  who  was  the  chief  of  Charles's  ministers, 
they  were  all  members  of  its  general  Committee  for  Plan- 
tations.   A  second  group  comprised  colonial  administrators 
and  men  already,  or  about  to  become,  actively  engaged  in 
colonial  enterprises,  such  as :  Lord  Willoughby,  the  founder 
of  EngHsh  Surinam  and  the  leaseholder  of  the  Caribbee 
Islands ;  Lord  Berkeley  and  Sir  George  Carteret,  who  were 
to  be  among  the  future  proprietors  of  the  Carolinas  and  to 
whom  the  Duke  of  York  in  1664  granted  the  Jerseys;^ 
Berkeley's  brother,  Sir  William,  the  experienced  royalist 
Governor  of  Virginia;  John  Colleton,  about  to  be  knighted, 
one  of  the  most  prominent  planters  in  Barbados*  and 
shortly  to  become  a  leading  figure  in  the  settlement  of 
Carolina.^    Finally,  there  were  included  in  the  Council  a 

1  C.  O.  1/14,  59,  ff.  I,  2;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  32-34;  C.  C.  1574- 
1660,  pp.  490,  492,  494.  The  Council  was  given  power  to  appoint  clerks, 
messengers,  etc.,  whose  salaries  were  not  to  exceed  £300  yearly.  Philip 
Froude  was  appointed  as  its  secretary.     1 

2  Manchester  was  also  the  Governor  of  the  Bermuda  Company. 
^  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  1095,  1 169.    • 

^  Ibid.  nos.  39,  60. 

^  Ibid.  nos.  457,  558,  912. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  233 

number  of  experts  in  colonial  matters,  who  in  the  main 
had  acquired  their  knowledge  from  personal  experience  as 
traders  or  planters.  Among  these  were  Thomas  Povey  and 
Martin  Noell,  —  to  whose  efforts  was  largely  due  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Council,  —  Sir  James  Drax,  Thomas  Kendall, 
and  Edward  Digges.  With  the  exception  of  Digges,  whose 
associations  were  with  Virginia,  virtually  aU  these  men  were 
predominantly  interested  in  the  West  Indies.  This  was  a 
natural  result  of  the  high  value  attached  to  the  sugar  and 
tobacco  trades  and  of  the  slight  actual  commercial  unpor- 
tance  of  New  England. 

The  commission  of  the  Council  stated  that  Charles  II 
deemed  its  appointment  necessary,  in  order  that  so  many 
remote  colonies,  which  had  grown  so  greatly  in  wealth  and 
population,  should  be  brought  under  a  uniform  inspection 
and  conduct  for  their  future  regulation,  security,  and  im- 
provement.^ Annexed  to  the  commission  were  detailed  in- 
structions defining  the  scope  of  the  Council's  work.^  They 
were  fully  to  inform  themselves  of  the  condition  of  each  col- 

1  "They  being  now  become  a  greate  and  numerous  people  whose  plentifull 
trade  and  comerce  verie  much  imployes  and  increaseth  the  navigacon  and 
expends  the  manufactures  of  our  dominions  and  exchanges  them  for  com- 
odities  of  necessary  use,  and  bring  a  good  accesse  of  treasure  to  our  Ex- 
chequ'"  for  customs  and  other  duties." 

2  C.  0. 1/14,  59,  ff.  3, 4 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  34-36 ;  C.  C.  1574-1660, 
pp.  492,  493;  Alpheus  H.  Snow,  The  Administration  of  Dependencies, 
pp.  79-82.  These  instructions  were  based  directly  upon  Povey's  "Over- 
tures touching  a  Councell  to  bee  erected  by  his  Ma**®  for  the  better  regu- 
lating and  improving  of  forreigne  Plantations,"  which  in  turn  rested  upon 
a  similar  set  of  proposals,  signed  by  Povey  and  Martin  Noell.  Brit.  Mus., 
Egerton  MSS.  2395,  ff.  270-275. 


4  ■  I 


Ml 


I 


\ 


h 


}i 


II 


234 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


ony  in  order  to  be  able  to  give  the  King  an  exact  account,  so 
that  all  could  be  regulated  upon  equal  ground  and  principle. 
Further,  they  were  to  apply  themselves  "to  all  prudentiaU 
meanes  for  the  rendering  these  dominions  usefuU  to  England, 
and  England  helpfull  to  them,-  and  to  introduce  in  the  colo- 
nies a  more  uniform  system  of  government.^     In  addition, 
they  were  instructed  to  take  especial  care  that  the  recent  Act 
of  Navigation  should  be  strictly  executed.    In  order  to  carry 
out  these  instructions  the  Council  was  authorized  Ho  advise 
order  settle  and  dispose  of  all  matters  relating  to  the  good 
government  and  improvement  of  the  plantations,'  and,  if 
further  powers  were  needed,  appUcation  was  to  be  made  to 
the  Privy  Council. 

Colonization  and  commerce  were  closely  related  and 
overlapping  spheres  of  activity,  with  no  distinct  lines  of 
demarcation.  From  the  standpoint  of  the  supervising 
government,  the  colonies  were  in  the  main  commercial 
enterprises  designed  to  further  EngKsh  trade  and  shipping. 
Hence,  simultaneously  with  the  foundation  of  the  Council 
for  Foreign  Plantations,  a  similar  body  was  created  to  take 
charge  of  commercial  matters.^    In  this  case,  also,  the  intent 

'  This  section  was  copied  directly  from  one  in  Povey's  "Overtures  " 
which  reads :  "This  CounceU  is  to  apply  itself  to  aU  prudentiaU  meanes  for 
the  rendermg  these  Dominions  vsefuU  to  England,  and  England  helpfull 
to  them ;  and  that  the  severaU  Peices,  and  CoUonies  bee  drawn  and  dis- 
posed mto  a  more  certaine  civiU,  and  vniforme  waie  of  Government  •  and 
distnbution  of  publick  Justice;  in  which  they  are  at  present  most  Scan- 
dalously defective."    Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  273. 

'  The  patent  of  the  Council  for  Trade  was  issued  Nov.  7  1660  a 
month  prior  to  that  of  the  Comicil  for  Foreign  Plantations,  which  was 
delayed  by  some  belated  additions  to  its  membership.  Andrews,  British 
Committees,  Commissions,  and  Councils  of  Trade  and  Plantations,  pp.  66, 67. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  235 


was  to  bring  to  the  aid  of  the  government  the  expert  knowl- 
edge and  experience  of  men  actually  engaged  in  these  pur- 
suits.^   This  Council  of  Trade  drew  its  membership  from 
the  same  classes  as  did  that  for  the  colonies,^  twenty-eight 
names  being  common  to  both.^    Among  its  members  were 
all  of  those  just  enumerated  as  belonging  to  the  Council  for 
Foreign  Plantations,  and  also  Sir  John  Wolstenholme  and  Sir 
George  Downing,  both  of  whom  were  skilled  in  financial  and 
economic  matters.    In  the  main,  this  body  was  to  devote  its 
attention  to  English  concerns,  but  in  addition  it  was  entrusted 
with  some  matters  vitally  affecting  the  colonies.     The  Coun- 
cil was  instructed  to  consider  the  general  state  and  trade 
of  the  colonies,  and  how  far  their  future  prosperity  might  be 
advanced  by  modifications  of  the  existing  English  tariff  in 
their  favor.     But  in  all  matters,  which  concerned  the  colo- 
nies, they  were  directed  to  take  advice  from  the  Council 
appointed  for  their  more  particular  inspection,  regulation, 
and  care.* 

1  The  intention  to  constitute  this  body  was  expressed  in  a  letter  of  the 
Privy  Council  to  the  Lord  Mayor  and  Aldermen  of  London,  stating  that 
the  Turkey  Merchants,  the  Merchant  Adventurers,  the  East  India,  Green- 
land, and  Eastland  Companies,  and  also  the  incorporated  (sic,  for  unincor- 
porated) traders  for  Spain,  France,  Portugal,  Italy,  and  the  West  Indian 
colonies  were  each  to  present  four  names,  of  which  the  King  would  choose 
two,  and  then  join  to  them  experienced  men  and  members  of  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil, who  together  should  constitute  "a  Standinge-Comittee,  to  inquire  into, 
and  certify  all  thinges  tending  to  the  Advancement  of  Trade  and  Com- 
merce."   P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  I,  fif.  131,  132 ;  P-  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  297,  298. 

2  The  commission  is  in  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  30-32. 
'  Andrews,  op.  cit.  pp.  67,  68. 

«Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  269.  These  mstructions  are  also 
printed  in  Cunningham,  op.  cit.  p.  915 ;  Andrews,  op.  cit.  p.  74.    Early  in 


\ 


'iiiii 

iilll 


I 


iri 


If! 


H 


236 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


The  first  meeting  of  the  Councfl  for  Plantations  was  held 
on  December  .10,  1660,  and  a  month  later,  after  the  hoU- 
days,   it   organized   for  business,   ordering  its   secretary, 
Phihp  Froude,   to  engage  the  necessary  employees  and 
appointing  committees  to  investigate  conditions  m  the  va- 
rious colonies  and  to  write  to  them.'    Letters,  with  general 
and  detaUed  instructions  for  the  separate  colonies,  were 
carefuUy  prepared   under   the  immediate   supervision   of 
Thomas  Povey,  to  whom  in  especial, as  "Clerk  of  the  Coun- 
cil," this  important  work  was  entrusted.^    Before  being 
actuaUy  despatched,  they  had,  however,  to  be  submitted  to 
the  King  for  approval.'     All  the  important  colonial  ques- 
tions of  the  period  came  under  the  CouncU's  consideration. 
Especial  attention  was  devoted  to  the  best  means  for 
furthering  Jamaica's  development,  to  the  crisis  in  the  Vir- 
ginia and  Maryland  tobacco  trade  resulting  from  over- 

1661,  the  Counca  for  Foreign  Plantations  wrote  to  the  government  of  Bar- 
bados, announcing  its  appointment  and  calling  attention  to  the  King's 
interest  m  the  colonies  as  evidenced,  not  only  by  the  creation  of  this  Council 
for  their  mspection  and  management,  but  also  "by  the  erecting  a  GeneraU 
CounceU  of  Trade,  wherein  their  Concernments  in  point  of  Manufactures, 
Navigation  and  Commerce  are  mingled  and  are  otherwise  provided  for 
with  the  rest  of  his  Ma"?'  Dominions."  Brit.  Mus.,Egerton  MSS.  2395, 
ff.  333  et  seq.  Cf.  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  .4.  The  colonial  Council  had  been 
especially  mstructed  to  inform  the  colonies  of  the  creation  of  this  other  body. 
C  C.  1574-1660,  p.  492. 

^  The  minutes  of  the  Council  are  in  C.  O.  1/14,  59,  ff.  1-57.  They  are 
somewhat  mcompletely  abstracted  in  the  pages  of  C.  C.  1661-1668 

'  ^S^-  ^/^4,  59,  f.  8 ;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  3.  Povey's  papers,  in  Brit. 
Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  contain  a  mass  of  invaluable  documents  on  the 
inception  and  activity  of  this  body. 

^^  'Cf.  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  239S,  ff.  333.  335;  C  C.  1661-1668,  nos. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  237 

production,  and  to  the  difficult  problem  arising  from  Puri- 
tan New  England's  independent  spirit  and  disinclination  to 
comply  with  the  aims  of  EngHsh  imperialism.^  The  charges 
of  illegal  trade  between  the  tobacco  colonies  and  the  Dutch 
in  New  Netherland,  in  violation  of  the  enumeration  clauses 
in  the  Act  of  Navigation,  likewise  came  before  the  Council, 
which  recommended  measures  calculated  to  remedy  this 
evil.^  In  addition,  some  minor  details  of  administration 
were  attended  to,  and  some  specific  suggestions  for  foster- 
ing the  economic  development  of  the  colonies  were  offered. 
The  most  far-reaching  and  pregnant  poHtical  recommenda- 
tion made  by  the  Council  was  that  Charles  II  should  come 
to  an  agreement  'vdth  all  who  have  propriety  in  any  of  the 
Plantations,  prevent  same  for  the  future,  and  take  them  all 
into  his  own  hands.'  ^ 

The  work  of  the  Council  was  in  the  main  done  by  its 
more  or  less  expert  members,  such  as  Povey,  Noell,  KendaU, 
Drax,  Digges,  and  Colleton.  Their  deliberations  were  as 
a  rule  presided  over  by  one  of  their  more  conspicuously 
prominent  associates,  such  as  Lord  Berkeley,  Lord  Ashley 
(better  known  as  the  Earl  of  Shaftesbury),  or  the  Earl  of 
Anglesey.^    At    the    outset,    in    1661,    frequent   meetings 

1  C.  O.  i/is,  42,  47 ;  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  299. 

2  C.  O.  1/14,  59,  ff-  53-56. 
8  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  3. 

*  At  the  meeting  of  July  6,  1663,  Lord  Berkeley  presided,  and  there  were 
present  Colleton,  Noell,  Kendall,  and  Digges.  At  the  subsequent  session, 
Dec.  7, 1663,  Lord  Ashley  presided,  and  those  attending  were  Lord  Berke- 
ley, CoUeton,  NoeU,  Digges,  O'Neill,  Crispe,  Boyle,  WaUer,  Shawe,  and 
Jefferies.  On  Dec.  16,  1663,  Ashley  again  presided,  and  those  present  were 
Lord  Berkeley,  Noell,  Crispe,  Boyle,  Coventry,  Povey,  Middleton,  and  Howe. 


III! 


14 1! 


238 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


were  held  and  were  weD  attended  by  the  working  members.' 
In  the  foUowing  years,  the  intervals  between  the  sessions 
became  longer  and  longer,  and  less  activity  was  manifested. 
This  was  due  primarily  to  the  fact  that  the  CouncD's  work 
was  predominantly  advisory,  and  had  to  be  passed  upon 
by  the  King  acting  through  the  Privy  CouncU  and  its  com- 
mittees.2  Its  chief  function  was  to  make  preliminary  ex- 
aminations and  to  sift  evidence,  so  that  only  matters  of  real 
importance  would  be  brought  before  the  Privy  Council, 
where  they  could  then  be  disposed  of  expeditiously. 

This  lack  of  responsibility  and  authority  naturally  les- 
sened the  interest  of  the  members  in  their  work,  and  tended 
to  make  its  performance  perfunctory.  Then,  as  the  years 
passed,  some  of  the  Council's  important  members,  like 
Povey,  were  drawn  into  other  lines  of  activity,  which  ab- 
sorbed their  time  and  energy.  FinaUy,  the  acute  stage 
which  the  economic  quarrel  with  the  Dutch  reached  in 
1664,  and  the  ensuing  war  which  greatly  increased  the  work 

On  Jan  19,  1664,  the  Earl  of  Anglesey  presided,  and  those  attending 
were  Lord  Ashley,  Colleton,  NoeU,  Kendall,  Digges,  Crispe,  Boyle,  WaUer, 
Povey,  and  Vernon.    0.0.1/14,59,5.53-55. 

'The  great  officers  of  state,  whose  membership  was  more  or  less  of  an 
ex-officjo  character,  rarely  attended  the  sessions.  On  one  occasion,  early 
in  1661  m  connection  with  proposab  for  registering  emigrants  to  the  col- 
onies, the  CouncU  requested  such  of  its  members  as  were  Lords  of  the  Privy 
Council  to  be  present.    C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  32. 

'  May  20,  1661,  Secretary  Froude  reported  to  the  CouncU,  that  he  had 
attended  'the  Principal  Secretary  of  State  with  the  letter  and  report  for 
New  England,  who  gave  answer  that  the  letter  for  New  England  being  a 
matter  of  State,  the  Lords  of  the  Privy  Council  would  take  it  into  considera- 
tion, and  to  that  purpose  a  committee  of  their  Lordships  was  appointed  for 
the  management  thereof.'    Ibid.  no.  91. 


« 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  239 

of  all  public  officials,  definitely  put  an  end  to  the  moribund 
Council ^s  sessions.  Its  activities  ceased  virtually  entirely 
towards  the  beginning  of  1665.^ 

The  course  of  the  Council  of  Trade's  active  life  ran  paral- 
lel to  that  of  the  colonial  body ;  for  similar  reasons  it  also 
expired  toward  the  end  of  1664.  During  its  brief  career, 
the  Council  investigated,  and  in  a  number  of  instances  re- 
ported on,  many  important  questions  affecting  Enghsh  eco- 
nomic interests,  such  as  the  Swedish  monopoly  of  pitch  and 
tar,  the  East  India  trade,  the  erection  of  banks  in  England, 
the  use  of  convoys  to  protect  the  merchant  fleets,  and  the 
English  sugar-refining  industry.^  Notwithstanding  its  in- 
structions, apparently  no  purely  colonial  questions  were 
handled,  although  some  of  the  subjects  just  mentioned  in- 
directly concerned  the  colonies.  Like  the  colonial  Council, 
this  body  did  not  fulfil  the  hopes  anticipated  from  its  appoint- 
ment. According  to  Clarendon,  the  dominant  poUtical  figure 
of  these  years,  it  "produced  little  other  effect  than  the  oppor- 
tunity of  men's  speaking  together,  which  possibly  disposed 
them  to  think  more,  and  to  consult  more  effectually  in  pri- 
vate, than  they  could  in  such  a  crowd  of  commissioners.^ '' 

These  two  Councils,  during  their  four  years  of  activity, 

1  The  last  recorded  meeting  in  the  minutes  is  that  of  Aug.  24,  1664, 
but  there  are  indications  of  Ufe  as  late  as  Feb.  24,  1665.  C.  O.  1/14,  59, 
f.  57 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  384;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  798,  833. 

2  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  25,115,  ff.  S'^^Sy  3^5  et  passim;  Cunningham, 
op.  cit.  appendix  D,  pp.  915-921;  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1660-1667,  pp.  124, 
245.  George  Duke  was  the  secretary  of  this  Council.  Ibid.  pp.  244,  513, 
615. 

3  Clarendon's  Autobiography  (Oxford,  1827)  II,  p.  231, 


I  Ji 


tl: 


r 


it 


M 


§k 


240 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


had  in  the  main  acted  in  an  advisory  capacity  to  the  Privy 
Council,  which  was  also  assisted  in  its  final  decisions  by  its 
own  committees.    When  the  Council  for  Plantations  ceased 
to  function,  the  colonial  committee  was  obliged  to  under- 
take all  the  rough  prehminary  work  of  investigation  and 
sifting.    Its  personnel,  hke  that  of    the  Privy   Council, 
naturally  changed  with  the  vicissitudes  of  English  poHtical 
life,  but,  as  in  1660,  it  continued  to  be  composed  of  the  chief 
ministers  and  leading  statesmen  of  the  day.^    After  the 
faU  of  Clarendon,  in  the  late  summer  of  1667,  the  members 
of  the  "Cabal"  took  charge  of  affairs;  and,  early  in  1668, 
the  work  of  the  Privy  Council  was  reorganized  and  four 
standing  committees  were  constituted  —  for  foreign  affairs, 
for  mihtary  matters,  for  petitions  and  grievances,  and  for 
trade  and  plantations.    This  last  committee  consisted  of  Lord 
Robartes,  the  Duke  of  Buckingham,  the  Earls  of  Ossory, 
Bridgewater,  and  Lauderdale,  Lords  Arlington,  Holies,  and 
Ashley,  Sir  George  Carteret,  Sir  Thomas  CHfford,  Sir  Will- 
iam Morice  and  Sir  William   Coventry.     They  were  or- 
dered to  meet  every  Thursday,  or  more  often  if  necessary, 

>  In  1666,  the  Committee  for  Foreign  Plantations  was  composed  of  the 
Lord  ChanceUor,  Lord  Treasurer,  Lord  Chamberlain,  Lord  Privy  Seal, 
Eari  of  Anglesey,  Lord  HoUes,  Lord  Ashley,  Lord  ArHngton,  the  Vice- 
Chamberiain,  and  Secretary  Morice.  In  1667,  Sir  William  Coventry 
and  Sir  John  Buncombe  were  added ;  in  1668,  the  Earls  of  Bath  and  Carlisle. 
P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  VI,  ff.  235,  554 ;  VII,  f.  iii  •  P.  C  Cal.  I,  pp.  421, 
433,  434-  In  addition,  the  New  England  committee  was  also  in  existence. 
On  Oct.  2,  1667,  His  Majesty  in  Council  ordered  that  the  Lords  of  the 
Council,  "formerly  appoynted  a  Committee  for  the  Affayres  of  New  Eng- 
land, "  should  meet  as  often  as  necessary  to  make  a  "Re-view"  of  what  had 
been  done  about  those  colonies.    Ibid.  p.  442. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  241 

and  it  was  provided  that  nothing  was  to  be  decided  by  the 
Privy  Council,  until  the  matter  had  been  first  examined  by 
some  committee."    In  addition,  later  in  the  year,  this  com- 
mittee "calling  vnto  them  his  Majestys  Attorney  GeneraU  or 
else  his  Majestys  Advocate, "  was  instructed  to  hear  aU  causes 
that  came  by  "way  of  appeale"  from  Jersey  and  Guernsey.'' 
In  this  way  originated  the  judicial  committee,  which  in  time 
.  came  to  be  the  ultimate  court  of  appeal  for  the  Empire. 
The  members  of  this  general  colonial  committee  were 
obliged  to  handle  a  number  of  detailed  questions,  such  as 
those  arising  out  of  the  territorial  readjustments  in  America 
arranged  in  the  Treaty  of  Breda  of  1667.'    At  the  same  time 
they  were  the  leadmg  poUticians  of  the  day  in  charge  of  do- 
mestic and  foreign  affairs,  and  could  iU  afford  to  spare  the 
time  demanded  by  such  minor  colonial  questions.     Hence 
again  there  arose  a  demand  for  an  auxiliary  council."    At 
this  time,  the  chief  promoters  of  this  idea  seem  to  have  been 

'  Andrews,  op.  cit.  pp.  88-90.  I„  1668,  "to  guarantee  a  more  business- 
like adnnmstration,  the  Privy  Counca  was  reorganized  in  a  number  of  com- 
mit ees,  he  most  important  being  that  for  foreign  affairs,  an  eminently  prac- 

r     Jf  l'^"'  "^  *^'°  '^''''^  ''"'  1°"8  '^"<»-^1  by  Clarendon  " 
Cambndge  Modem  History  V,  p.  201. 

n,,^;^;^^^'  ^'  ''?■  *^^'  '^"-    ^  '^^  ^""^  '^^9,  some  additions  were 
made  to  tks  committee,    im.  p.  457;  P.  C  Register  Charles  H  VUI 

I.     317.  »       »*iA, 

'  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  1712,  1769,  1770,  1824,  1883. 
_    *  Already  on  Sept.  23,  1667,  the  predecessor  of  this  committee  was 
i^tnicted  to  take  into  its  consideration  the  question  of  reviving  the  CoZ 
CU  of  Trade  and  uniting  it  with  that  for  the  colonies.    The  respective  ^Z 
^nes  of  these  bodies  were  ordered  to  attend  the  committee  ^h  Z  cll- 

«1  s  comnussions,  mstructions,  *.    P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  VI,  f.  594. 
1".  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  434,  43 J.  '      iy*> 


242 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


m 


m 


a 


Henry  Bennet,  Lord  Arlington,  and  Lord  Ashley,  the  future 
Earl  of  Shaftesbury  —  the  two  "A"s  in  the  "Cabal"  min- 
istry.   As  Secretary  of  State,  Arlington  had  been  for  some 
time  closely  associated  with  colonial  affairs;    the  bulk  of 
the  correspondence  from  America  was  addressed  to  hun, 
and  at  some  stage  virtually  every  colonial  question  passed 
through  his  hands  or  those  of  his  efficient  secretary,  Joseph 
Wilhamson.    Shaftesbury's  connection  with  general  colo- 
nial affairs  was  not  quite  so  close.    As  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer,  he  was  not  officially  concerned  with  their  ad- 
ministration.   But  he  had  been  a  prominently  active  mem- 
ber of  the  Council  for  Plantations  of  1660,  and  was  the 
leading  spirit  in  the  colonization  of  Carolina.    Moreover, 
he  was  a  conspicuously  strenuous  exponent  of  the  current 
nationalism   in   economic   poHcy.    Among   his   papers   is 
preserved  an  anonymous  memorial,  entitled  "Some  Con- 
siderations   about    the    Comission   for    Trade,"  ^   whose 
views  agree  perfectly  with  those  expressed  by  Shaftesbury 
on  other  occasions.    Therein  it  was  contended  that  "  that 
which  makes  y*  Consideration  of  Trade  of  farre  greater 
import  now  then  ever  is  That  y*'  Interest  of  Commerce 
though  formerly  neglected  is  of  late  yeares  Become  an 
Express  Affayre  of   State  as  well  with  the   French  as  w'? 
ye  Hollander  and  Swede.    And  y'  Because  it  is  understood 
by  latter  experience  to  be  more  Conducing  toward  an  uni- 
versall  Monarchy  (eyther  for  y*  gayning  or  preventing  of 
it)  then  eyther  an  Army  or  Territory  though  never  so  great, 
of  w^^  Listances  out  of  severall   Kingdomes  might  easily 
'  Shaftesbury  Papers,  Section  X,  no.  8,  first  paper. 


i 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  243 

be  Produced,  In  regard  It  is  Trade  &  Comerce  alone  that 
draweth  store  of  wealth  along  with  it  and  y'  Potency  at 
sea  By  shypping  w*^*"  is  not  otherwise  to  be  had."  Trade 
being  thus  well  understood  by  our  neighbors,  the  memo- 
rial continued,  we  must  either  lead  in  "this  great  &generall 
Affayre  of  State,"  or  must  be  humbled  under  the  power  of 
them  that  are  able  to  govern  it.  From  these  premises  it 
naturally  followed  that  the  government  should  earnestly  de- 
vote its  best  energies  to  the  development  of  national  trade. 
In  accordance  with  these  views,  there  was  appointed  in 
October  of  1668  a  new  Council  of  Trade,  with  instructions 
to  take  imder  its  consideration  colonial  affairs,  as  well  as 
England's  foreign  and  domestic  trades.^  It  included  in  its 
membership  Lord  Arlington,  Lord  Ashley,  Lord  Berkeley, 
Sir  Thomas  Clifford,  Sir  George  Downing,  Benjamin  Wors- 
ley,  and  a  nimiber  of  London  merchants.^  This  body  ex- 
ercised considerable  influence  on  colonial  administration. 
Among  other  matters,'  it  prepared  a  report  in  consequence 
whereof  the  privilege,  which  had  been  temporarily  granted 
to  Dutch  ships  to  trade  to  New  York,  was  rescinded.*  It 
investigated  the  entire  question  of  the  execution  of  the 
laws  of  trade  and  navigation  in  the  colonies,  and  upon  its 
recommendations  was  based  the  order  of  January  20,  1669, 
providing  measures  for  their  better  enforcement.^ 

1  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  175,  176;  F.  R.  Harris,  Earl  of  Sandwich  II, 
PP-  305>  306. 

2  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1884. 
'  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  499,  517. 

*  Ibid.  pp.  491,  492 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  176-178. 

*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1884;  ibid.  1669-1674,  p.  3;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp. 
499-501. 


i 


I  1 


k 


244 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


In  1670,  the  special  colonial  Council  was  also  revived 
in  July  of  that  year  a  commission'  was  issued  to  the  Earl 
of  Sandwich,  Lord  Gorges,  Lord  Allington,  Thomas  Grey 
Heniy  Brouncker,  Sir  Humphrey  Winch,  Sir  John  Finch' 
Edmund  Waller,  Henry  Slingesby,  and  Silas  Titus,  constitut- 
ing them  a  "Speciall  and  Select  CounsiU"  to  take  charge 
of  the  colonies,  to  inform  themselves  of  their  present  state 
-their  trade,  system  of  defence  and  government  -  and 
to  report  to  the  King,  so  that  such  orders  should  be  given 
as  might  best  conduce  to  the  "Safety  and  Flourishing  of 
those  our  Dominions."    Of  this  body.  Sandwich  was  ap- 
pomted  president  and  Hemy  Slingesby  secreta^^.    In  addi- 
tion to  Its  ten  official  members,  the  ChanceUor  of  the  Ex- 
chequer, Ashley,  the  Lord  Treasurer  or  Commissioners  of  the 
Treasury,  and  the  Secretaries  of  State  had  not  only  access 
to  Its  sessions,  but  also  the  right  of  speaking  and  voting. 
Two  miportant  facts  differentiate  this  CouncU  from  its  prede- 
cessor of  Z660.    Its  size  was  much  smaUer,  which  was  more 
in  accord  with  Thomas  Povey's  original  proposals,  and  the 
official  members  received  salaries  which  gave  somewhat 
greater  authority  to  its  work.^ 

Pape?  sS  X  ""'^t  ^^°°  ^-'^  -1  the  others  £500.    Shaftesbury 
Papers  Section  X,  no.  to,  ff.  20-.4.    I„  addition,  £1000  yearly  was  granted 

."IS  r  :;r  rr  •■r""  ^--  ^  --  :r 

Stock  Companies  HI,  p.  531.  ^*  ^^'         ^'  ^'^''"^  J^^^^" 


I 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  245 

Annexed  to  the  commission  were  carefully  prepared  in- 
structions,^ based  upon  those  issued  to  the  Council  of  1660, 
but  modified  naturally  by  the  experience  of  the  intervening 
decade.  In  general,  the  Council  was  to  apply  itself  "by  all 
prudentiall  wayes  and  Meanes  so  to  Order,  Governe,  and 
Regulate  the  Trade  of  our  whole  plantations,  that  they  may 
be  most  serviceable  one  unto  another,  and  as  the  whole  unto 
these  our  kingdomes  so  these  our  kingdomes  unto  them." 
With  this  object  in  view,  they  were  to  make  a  study  of  the 
economic  and  industrial  conditions  in  the  colonies  and  to 
suggest  improvements.  Naturally  they  were  specifically  in- 
structed to  see  that  the  laws  of  trade  were  obeyed.^ 

One  special  line  of  investigation  was  enjoined  upon  the 
Council,  which  admirably  illustrates  the  stress  placed  upon 
colonies  as  sources  of  supply  that  should  free  England 
from  dependence  on  her  rivals  in  the  race  for  commercial 
supremacy.  At  the  outset  of  the  movement  of  colonization, 
it  had  been  confidently  anticipated  that  New  England  would 
take  the  place  of  the  Baltic  countries  as  a  source  of  naval 
stores.  These  expectations  had,  however,  come  to  nought,^ 
but  the  idea  was  now  revived.    The  commissioners  were 

*  Shaftesbury  Papers,  Section  X,  no.  10,  ff.  9-15 ;  Bodleian,  RawKnson 
MSS.,  A  255,  f-  145 ;  C.  O.  389/4,  5. 

^  This  board  of  commissioners  did  not  wholly  supersede  the  colonial 
work  of  the  Council  of  Trade.  They  were  instructed  to  write  to  the  colonial 
governors  of  the  King's  signal  care  towards  the  colonies  "and  of  our  erect- 
ing not  only  a  generall  Councill  for  Trade,  that  might  take  cognizance  of 
such  things  as  may  be  their  conceme  But  of  our  appointing  this  Councell 
in  particular  which  is  employed  only  for  the  better  care  and  conduct  of 
them." 

3  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  56,  65,  75,  76,  279,  280. 


1^ 


'I 


N 


4 


I 


li  l! 


<i 


« 


t 


tl 


346 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


ordered  to  consider  especiaUy  if  masts,  ship-timber,  flax, 
hemp,  pitch,  and  tar  could  not  be  obtained  from  America, 
and  "also  where  MiUs  might  be  most  conveniently  placed 
and  encreased  for  the  sawing  of  Timber,  and  planke,  and 
how  best  we  may  ease  the  charge  and  promote  the  building 
there  of  great  Shipping."  1    This  view  of  the  economic 
value  of  colonies  was  also  illustrated  in  the  additional  in- 
structions issued  to  the  Council  in  August  of  1670.^    Herein 
the  commissioners  were  ordered  to  recommend  to  the  colo- 
nies the  production  of  saltpetre,  so  that  England  should 
not  be  obliged  to  import  it  from  the  East  Indies,  and  fur- 
ther, as  it  seemed  probable  that  the  colonies  could  produce 
more  drugs,  gums,  and  dyeing  materials  than  they  did,  and 
even  spices  and  other  products  of  the  East  Indies,  Turkey, 
and  the  Spanish  and  Portuguese  colonies,  they  were  also 
to  investigate  this  subject,  and  to  encourage  the  colonial 
planters  in  such  undertakings. 

It  was  the  purpose  of  the  government  to  make  this  a 
very  influential  body.  With  the  object  of  adding  greater 
weight  to  it,  m  1671,  a  number  of  the  most  prominent  noble- 

•  "And  in  regard  whatsoever  Conduceth  to  the  Increase  of  Shipping  must 
equally  Conduce  to  y«  safety  and  Strength  of  these  Nations,  and  that  not 
only  Masts,  butt  all  other  Materially,  as  weU  for  y«  building  as  fitting  out 
of  ships  of  great  Burthen  may,  as  wee  are  informed,  be  plentifuUy  furnished 
&om  some  of  our  Plantations,  if  care  here  unto  were  more  especially  used 
You  are  therefore  more  particularly  to  advise  about  this  matter  with  the  sev- 
eraU  Governours  and  Colonies  of  New  England,  and  to  propound  to  them  or 
receive  their  Opinion  what  Methods  and  Course  might  bee  most  fitt  for  y» 
produceing  Flax,  Hemp,  Rtch,  and  Tarre,  in  those  Counttyes  in  m«st  plenty!"' 

Shaftesbury  Papers,  Section  X,  no.  10,  ff.  17-19;  Bodleian,  Rawlinson 
MSS.,  A  255,  f.  150. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  247 

men  and  statesmen  —  the  Duke  of  York,  Prince  Rupert, 
the  Duke  of  Buckingham,  the  Duke  of  Ormonde,  the  Earl  of 
Lauderdale,  Lord  Culpeper,  and  Sir  George  Carteret— were 
appointed  non-oflSicial  members.^  At  the  same  time,  the 
diarist  Evelyn  was  made  a  salaried  official  commissioner, 
''a  considerable  honour,"  so  runs  his  account  of  the  inci- 
dent, "the  others  in  the  Council  being  chiefly  noblemen 
and  officers  of  state."  ^  Some  indication  of  the  Council's 
status  is  also  given  by  the  fact,  noted  by  Evelyn,  that 
proper  arrangements  were  made  "that  his  Majesty  might 
come  and  sit  amongst  us,  and  hear  our  debates."^ 

In  the  following  year,  it  was  decided  to  transfer  the 
Coimcil  of  Trade's  work  to  this  far  more  active  conmiis- 
sion  in  charge  of  purely  colonial  affairs.  In  all  proba- 
bility this  step  was  primarily  due  to  the  appreciation  of 
the  fact  that  these  two  subjects  were  closely  related  and 
could  be  advantageously  handled  together,  as  was  already 
done  by  the  Privy  Council's  committee.  Accordingly, 
in  September  of  1672,  a  commission  to  this  effect  was 
issued,  creating   a   Council  for  Trade  and  Plantations.* 

1  Shaftesbury  Papers,  Section  X,  no.  10,  ff.  25-27 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill, 
pp.  190-193 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  178. 

2  Evelyn,  Feb.  28,  29,  and  March  10,  167 1. 

8  Ibid.  June  26,  167 1.  Evelyn  states  that,  on  May  26,  1671,  the  oaths 
were  administered  to  him  and  to  Buckingham,  Lauderdale,  Culpeper,  and 
Carteret  by  the  Earl  of  Sandwich,  as  president,  and  that  "it  was  to  advise 
and  counsel  his  Majesty,  to  the  best  of  our  abiUties,  for  the  well-governing 
of  his  Foreign  Plantations,  &c.,  the  form  very  little  differing  from  that 
given  to  the  Privy  Council." 

*  Shaftesbury  Papers,  Section  X,  nos.  8  and  10.  Under  Sept.  i,  1672, 
Evelyn  writes:  "Now,  our  Council  met  at  Lord  Shaftesbury's  (Chancellor 


I   : 


-\l' 


11 


248 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Some  important  changes  in  its  membership  were  made. 
That  "incomparable  person,"  as  Evelyn  devotedly  caUs 
him,  the  Earl  of  Sandwich,  one  of   the  old  CromweUian 
guard,  who  had  been  recently  killed  in   a  naval  engage- 
ment with  the  Dutch,!  was   succeeded  in   the  presidency 
by    Ashley,    now   Earl    of    Shaftesbury.     Lord    Culpeper 
was  made  vice-president,  and  as  secretary  was  appointed 
Br.  Benjamin  Worsley,  who  had  been  prominent  in  the 
Council  of  Trade,  and,  as  an  expert  on  the  economic  possi- 
bihties  of  the  colonies,  had  in  1670  been  attached  to  the 
Council  of  Plantations  as  "assistant"  with  a  salary  of  £300.2 
Among  the  clerks  was  Shaftesbury's  friend  and  adviser, 
the  philosopher  John  Locke,  who  m  1673  succeeded  Worsley 
as  secretaiy.3    The  salaried  official  members  included  Eve- 
lyn, Shngesby,  and  Brouncker;    and,  in  addition,  the  most 
important  members  of  the  Pri^y  CouncO,  such  as  the  Lord 
ChanceUor,  the  Lord  Treasurer,  the  Secretaries  of  State, 

of  the  Exchequer)  to  read  and  reform  the  draught  of  our  new  Patent 

joining  the  Counca  of  Trade  to  our  poUtical  capacities."    See  also  Evelyn' 

Oct  13,  1672,  and  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  407. 
1  Evelyn,  May  31,  1672. 
«  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1669-1672,  p.  769;  ibid.  1672-1675,  p.  173  •   C   C 

1661-1668,  nos.  1299, 1822 ;  ihid.  1669-1674,  p.  135 ;  Evelyn,  May  31, 1672! 
Evelyn    Oct.   24,  1672,  Sept.   16,  1673,  Oct.   15,   1673.    Under   the 

ast  date,  he  notes:  "To  Council,  and  swore  in  Mr.  Locke,  secretary- 
Worsley's  salary  of  £500  as  secretary  ceased  on  June  24,  1673,  and 
Locke  s  began  on  that  day.  In  addition,  the  president  received  yearly 
iSoo,  the  vice-president  £600,  each  of  the  salaried  members  £500,  and 
about  £1000  was  aUowed  for  contingent  expenses.  Cal.  Treas.  Books 
1672-1675,  pp.  14,  126,  172,  173,  419,  426,  460,  476,  579,  602,  710.  Locke'I 
accounts  as  secretary  and  treasurer  are  m  the  Public  Record  Office  De- 
clared Accounts,  Pipe  Office,  RoU  2967. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  249 

were  authorized  to  attend  the  Council's  sessions  and  to 
join  in  its  proceedings  by  voice  and  vote.^ 

The  Council  for  Plantations  and  its  enlarged  successor 
had  together  a  joint  life  of  somewhat  over  four  years,  dur- 
ing which  short  period  they  greatly  improved  the  entire 
system  of  imperial  control.  They  held  formal  meetings  on 
an  average  of  at  least  twice  a  week,^  and  in  addition  con- 
siderable work  was  done  by  its  members  on  committees  or 
as  individuals.  On  one  occasion,  when  complaints  of  "many 
indiscreet  managements''  were  brought  against  Sir  Charles 
Wheler,  the  Governor  of  the  Leeward  Islands,  Evelyn  wrote 
that  "this  business  staid  me  in  London  almost  a  week, 
being  in  Council,  or  Committee,  every  morning."  ^  The 
Council  examined  carefully  the  mass  of  petitions,  complaints, 
and  memorials  emanating  from  colonial  sources,  and  also 
demanded  detailed  information  from  the  colonial  authori- 
ties on  local  conditions  to  aid  it  in  its  work.  Former  officials, 
colonial  planters,  and  others  conversant  with  conditions  in 
the  colonies  were  freely  called  upon  for  information.  Upon 
the  exceptionally  full  knowledge  of  the  facts  thus  acquired 
were  based  its  reports  to  the  Privy  Council.  In  addition, 
the  Council  prepared  the  preliminary  drafts  of  the  com- 

1  The  instructions  were  virtually  the  same  as  those  issued  to  the  two 
separate  Councils,  which  it  superseded.  Shaftesbury  Papers,  Section  X,  no.  9. 

2  Professor  Andrews  has  carefully  compiled  a  Ust  of  these  meetings 
from  various  sources,  but  mainly  from  the  colonial  calendar  and  from 
Evelyn's  Diary.  Andrews,  op.  cit.  pp.  loi  et  seq.  In  addition  to  the  state 
papers  abstracted  in  the  calendar,  there  is  available  for  a  study  of  this 
Council  an  entry  book  of  letters  written  by  it,  containing  also  reports  and 
other  important  documents.    This  is  C.  O.  389/10. 

3  Evelyn,  Nov.  14,  167 1. 


2SO 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


4 


il 


missions  and  instructions  to  the  various  colonial  governors 
which  were  then  submitted  to  the  Privy  Council  for  ap- 
proval. Furthermore,  this  board  carefully  scrutinized  the 
legislation  in  the  different  colonies  to  see  if  it  were  not  det- 
nmental  to  English  or  unperial  interests.^ 

In  addition  to  systematizing  this  routine  work  of  colo- 
nial administration,  the  Council  investigated  and  reported 
on  every  special  colonial  question  of  these  years.    Among 
other  matters,  considerable  attention  was  devoted  to  the 
awkward  situation  created  by  New  England's  recalcitrant 
attitude ;   this  was  handled  with  the  necessary  delicacy  and 
tact.     They  also  formulated  the  rule  that  during  the  Dutch 
war  ships  homeward  bound  from  the  colonies  should  saU 
only  m  fleets  or  under  convoy.^    Spain's  protest  against 
tiie  Jamaica  logwood  trade  in  Campeachy  likewise  came 
before  the  Council.''  and  also  the  question  of  making  a 
separate  govermnent  of  the  Leeward  Islands,  hitherto  an- 
nexed  to  Barbados.^ 

Despite  this  Comicil's  zealous  and  conscientious  activity 

and  Its  marked  efficiency  when  contrasted  with  any  similar 

.precedmg  board  or  committee,  it  did  not  whoUy  escape 

^^^•C.  C.  X66P-.674,  pp.  300,  30X,  539,  540,  545,  567-571,  575,  6x9,  6.5, 

Ptoy  Winch,  the  chairman,  to  examine  the  laws  of  his  Majesty's  several 
pUntations  and  colonies  in  the  West  Indies,  &c."    EvJ^^^Nr? 

^  Ibid.  April  19,  1672. 
*  Ibid.  March  i,  1672. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  251 

criticism.    Like  the  later  Board  of  Trade,^  it  was  charged 
with  neglecting  to  communicate   sufficiently  with  the  co- 
lonial governors.    At  this  time,  the  Lieutenant-Governor 
of  Jamaica,  Sir  Thomas  Lynch,  was  an  exceptionally  effi- 
cient pubHc  official,  and  like  some  of  his  successors  in  similar 
posts  elsewhere,  such  as  the  Eari  of  Bellomont  and  WiUiam 
Shirley,  he  was  a  most  frequent  and  indefatigably  volu- 
minous correspondent.    Apart  from  occasional  letters  ad- 
dressed to  the  Lord  Keeper,  the  Master  of  the  Ordnance, 
the  Lords  of  the  Treasury,  Sir  John  Trevor,  one  of  the  Secre- 
taries of  State,2  Lynch  wrote  regularly  to  Arlington  and  his 
secretary,  Williamson,  as  well  as  to  the  Council  for  Planta- 
tions and  its  secretary  Slingesby.^    Lynch  was  especially 
anxious  to  receive  from  the  government  explicit  instructions 
about  the  Jamaica  logwood  trade  to  Campeachy.     But  as 
this  question  threatened  to  involve  England  in  war  with 
Spain,  the  subject  had  to  be  carefully  considered,  and  there 
was  naturally  considerable  delay  in  answering  Lynches  fre- 
quent and  urgent  appeals.    On  January  27,  1672,  Lynch 
wrote  to  Williamson :  "  I  would  beg  vou  once  more  for  God's 
sake  to  move  my  Lord  [Arlmgton))  in  this  j(the  logwood  ?  ^^ 
trade  questioi^  and  what  else  may  be  of  moment,  and  be 
pleased  more  frequently  to  give  me  his  Lordship's  orders 
when  he  is  not  pleased  to  write  them  himself,  or  let  me 
know  whether  I  must  not  apply  myself  to,  or  follow  the 

1  C/.  O.  M.  Dickerson,  American  Colonial  Government,  1696-1765,  pp. 

66-69. 

2  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  387. 

3  See  ibid,  in  the  index  a  list  of  Lynches  letters. 


y^  'f 


\ 


w 


If 

I 


252 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


orders  of  my  Lord  President  Sandwich,  or  Mr.  Secreta^^ 
Shngesby."      Six  months  later,  Lynch  wrote  to  the  CoZ 
cd,    complaining   that  his  many    letters    had   not  been 
acknowledged   and   adding  that   '  one   of  his  great   dis- 
couragements is    that    he    must    act    according   to   the 
reason  of  things  here,  which  at  court  may  be  understood 
accordmg  as  one  has  success  or  friends  there."    At  the 
same  time,  he  wrote  to  Williamson  that  the  Council  had 
at  least  100  sheets  of  paper  of  his  before  them,  but  not 
even  from  the  meanest  of  their  clerks  has  he  had  a  syUable  • 
at  which  he  wonders.-   When  finaUy,  in  October,  the  gov- 
ernment had  completed  its  examination  of  the  logwood  trade 
question,  the  Comicil's  secretaiy  sent  the  desired  instruc- 
tions to  Jamaica,  stating  at  the  same  time  that  he  had 
been  directed  to  acquaint  Lynch  that,  'through  the  war, 
but  chiefly  by  reason  of  the  unhappy  death  of  the  late 
President,  the  Earl  of  Sandwich,  their  Lordships  have  not 
written  so  frequently  as  he  might  possibly  expect,  yet 
such  care  will  be  taken  in  future  for  supplying  him  wi"th 
advice  as  that  he  shaU  not  need  to  fear  any  discouragement 
for  want  of  it.'  * 

'  CC.  1669-1674,  pp.  322,  323.    Lynch  also  wrote  to  Sir  Charles  Lvttel 
ton  who  ten  years  before  had  been  the  executive  head  of  Ja^ca  to  1" 
his  influence  in  this  matter.    Ibid.  p.  324.  Jamaica,  to  use 

'  Ibid.  pp.  385,  386. 

th.1 1*^;  f;  '^l\  P°  ^°''-  ^'  '^^'-  ^y°*  '^'^  to  Secretary  SUneesbv 

■IDlUf  p.  417* 


i 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  253 

In  view  of  the  gravity  of  the  case,  this  delay  in  the  gov- 
ernment's decision  was  inevitable/  and  although  Lynches 
impatience  is  comprehensible,  the  Council  cannot  be  charged 
with  neglecting  the  colonies.  This  episode,  however,  em- 
phasizes one  defect  that  was  inherent  in  the  council 
system.  Lynch  was  at  loss  where  to  turn  for  instructions, 
whether  to  the  Council  for  Plantations  or  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  State,  Lord  Arlington,  who  carried  into  effect  the 
decisions  of  the  King  and  Privy  Council.  The  Council 
for  Plantations'  authority  and  effectiveness  were  neces- 
sarily impaired  by  the  fact  that  it  was  a  purely  advisory 
body  without  executive  authority.  Among  the  papers 
preserved  by  Thomas  Povey  is  an  anonymous  memorial 
written  at  the  time,  which  plainly  laid  bare  this  defect 
and  suggested  a  remedy.^  This  clear-sighted  critic  pointed 
out  that  "whatsoever  Council  is  not  enabled  as  well 
to  execute  as  advise  must  needs  produce  very  imperfect 
and  weake  effects.  It  being  by  its  subordition  and  im- 
potency  obliged  to  have  a  continual  recourse  to  Superiour 
Ministers,  and  Councils  filled  with  other  busnes,  w*"^  often- 
times giues  great  and  prejudicial  delays,  and  usualy 
begets  new  or  slower  deliberations,  and  results,  then  y'^ 
matter  in  hand  may  stand  in  need  of."  Hence,  he  con- 
cluded, such  a  coimcil  necessarily  becomes  weak  and  in- 
effective. 

1  The  main  delay  was  caused  by  Sir  William  Godolphin,  the  English 
Ambassador  in  Spain.  Arlington  wrote  to  him  about  this  matter  in  October 
of  1 67 1,  but  his  reply  was  received  only  eight  months  later.  Arlington's 
Letters  (London,  1701)  II,  pp.  336,  373- 

2  Brit.  Mus.,  EgertoH  MSS.  2395,  f.  276. 


/ 


I« 


*l 


254 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


In  all  probability,  this  was  the  underlying  cause  that  led 
to  the  revocation  of  the  Council's  commission  on  Decem- 
ber 21,  1674.^  But,  in  addition,  there  were  certain  more 
specific  and  personal  reasons,  connected  with  the  changed 
political  situation  in  England.  In  1673,  Shaftesbury  was 
dismissed  from  office,  and  shortly  thereafter  Arlington 
also  resigned  his  post  of  Secretary  of  State;  the  two 
chief  patrons  of  the  Coimcil  could  thus  no  longer  pro- 
tect it.  The  rising  power  in  the  poKtical  world  was 
Sir  Thomas  Osborne,  who  in  1673  secured  CUfford's 
place  of  Lord  Treasurer,  and  in  1674,  as  Earl  of  Danby, 
became  Charles's  chief  minister.  Evelyn  relates  that,  when 
Danby  succeeded  Clifford,  the  Council  for  Trade  and  Plan- 
tations "went  in  a  body  to  congratulate  the  new  Lord 
Treasurer,  no  friend  to  it,  because  promoted  by  my  Lord 
Arlington,  whom  he  hated.'' ^  Danby 's  hostiUty  to  the 
Council  was  probably  due  also  to  less  personal  motives. 
It  was  an  expensive  body,  costing  about  £7000  yearly,  and 
the  Exchequer  was  chronically  depleted.  Though  open  to 
criticism  on  other  coimts,  Danby  fully  realized  the  necessity 
for  strict  economy;  he  "was  the  first  man  of  his  time  to 
apply  himself  systematically  to  the  problems  of  finance 
that  underlie  all  administration."  ^ 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  exact  reasons  for  the  dis- 
solution of  the  Coimcil,  in  consequence  thereof  'all  matters 
imder  their  cognizance  were  left  loose  and  at  large.'    The 

1  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  229,  230;  C.  O.  391/1  (preceding  f.  i). 

^  Evelyn,  June  23,  1673. 

^  Pollock,  in  Cambridge  Modem  History  V,  pp.  214,  215. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  255 

Privy  Council's  Committee  for  Trade  and  Plantations,  upon 
whom  devolved  all  this  work,^  could  not  cope  with  it,  unless 
it  were  completely  reorganized.  The  anonymous  critic^ 
of  the  council  system,  quoted  above,  had  suggested  that, 
since  EngUsh  practice  did  not  admit  of  plenary  authority 
being  vested  in  any  but  the  highest  Council,  "it  remains 
only  as  y*"  best  expedient.  That  Com^'  be  appointed  out  of 
y«  Privy  Council,  under  y''  Great  Seal,"  who  should  hold 
regular  meetings  every  week  to  consider  colonial  affairs 
and  should  be  empowered  to  act  and  order  with  as  ample 
an  authority  as  the  Commissioners  of  the  Admiralty  did. 
Furthermore,  it  was  urged  that  these  Commissioners  should 
have  a  permanent  secretary  who  should  devote  all  his  time 
to  colonial  matters.  He  should  correspond  with  the  gov- 
ernors and  other  colonial  officials,  should  collect  and  preserve 
all  documents  relating  to  these  affairs,  and  in  general  should 
keep  himself  informed  of  everything  that  concerned  both 
the  English  and  the  foreign  colonies.^  A  device  very  similar 
to  this  was  adopted  by  the  government. 

^  The  petition  of  Mason  and  Gorges  against  Massachusetts  was  referred 
to  this  committee  on  Jan.  13,  1675,  with  orders  for  it  to  meet  the  follow- 
ing day.  Similar  action  was  taken  with  the  Newfoundland  question  on 
Feb.  12,  1675.  P-  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  616,  617,  619.  The  Journal  of  the  Lords 
of  Trade  begins  with  a  session  on  Feb.  9,  1675,  and  further  meetings  were 
held  on  Feb.  11,  12,  23,  25,  and  27.     C.  O.  391/1,  ff.  1-6. 

2  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  276. 

3  "The  want  of  such  a  necessary  and  settled  Officer,  among  many  other 
inconveniencys,  having  bin  y®  occasion  that  scarce  any  Record,  Testi- 
monial, Letters  or  papers  of  Consequence  haue  bin  to  be  found  in  any 
place,  w®^  may  informe  and  assist  his  Ma*?  Councels,  And  may  shew  and 
justify  y®  original  Right  and  progres  of  the  Settlements  of  many  of  our 
most  considerable  Colonies,  and  of  those  under  other  States." 


b 


i 


m 


256 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


;■  I 


!  I 


m 


On  March  12,  1675/  Charles  II  formally  committed  those 
matters,  that  had  been  under  the  "Inspection  and  Manage- 
ment" of  the  dissolved  Council,  to  the  Privy  Council's  Com- 
mittee for  Trade  and  Foreign  Plantations,  and  designated 
as  members  of  it  over  a  score  of  the  state  officials  and  great 
noblemen,  of  whom  nine,  especially  named,  were  entrusted 
with  "the  immediate  Care  and  Intendency  of  those  Affaires 
in  regard  they  had  been  formerly  conversant  and  acquainted 
therewith."  ^  This  Committee  was  instructed  to  meet  at 
least  once  a  week,^  and  Sir  Robert  Southwell,  one  of  the 
Clerks  of  the  Privy  Council,  was  ordered  constantly  to 
attend  it.* 

This  Committee,  generally  known  as  the  Lords  of  Trade, 
differs  in  important  respects  from  its  predecessors.  It  was 
a  permanent  standing  body  with  its  own  clerks,  who  sys- 
tematized its  business  and  its  archives.  A  formal  journal  of 
the  proceedings  was  carefully  kept,  and  a  satisfactory  sys- 
tem was  devised  for  classifying  and  filing  the  growing  mass 
of  colonial  documents.    This  work  was  instituted  by  Sir 

1  C.  O.  389/11,  f.  I ;  im.  324/4,  f.  7;  ibid.  391/1,  fif.  8,  9;  P.  C.  Regis- 
ter Charles  II,  XI,  f.  395;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  619;  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  p. 
222;   C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  182. 

2  These  nine  were  the  Lord  Privy  Seal,  the  Earls  of  Bridgewater,  CarKsle, 
and  Craven,  Viscounts  Fauconberg  and  Halifax,  Lord  Berkeley,  the  Vice- 
Chamberlain,  and  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer.  In  June  of  1675,  the 
Earl  of  St.  Albans  was  added  to  the  committee.  P.  C.  Register  Charles 
II,  XI,  f.  450. 

3  Originally  five  members  were  to  constitute  a  quorum,  but  in  May  of 
1675  this  number  was  reduced  to  three.     P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  620. 

^  The  Committee  decided  to  meet  regularly  on  Thursdays  in  the  fore- 
noon, and  oftener  as  occasion  should  require.    C.  O.  391/1,  f.  8. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  257 

Robert  Southwell/  one  of  the  Clerks  of  the  Privy  Council, 
a  position  of  far  greater  dignity  than  the  name  seemingly 
indicates.  He  was  efl&ciently  assisted  in  this  work  by  Will- 
iam Blathwayt,  who  had  entered  this  service  on  Septem- 
ber  29,  1675.2  In  May  of  1676,  as  Southwell,  on  the  score 
of  ill  health,  had  asked  to  be  reheved  from  constant  attend- 
ance on  the  Committee,  it  was  ordered  that  such  of  the 
Clerks  of  the  Privy  Council  as  so  might  desire  —  there  were 
four  in  all^  —  should  in  rotation  assume  these  duties  for 
six  months  at  a  time;  and  that  Blathwayt,  whose  abiHty 
had  quickly  gained  recognition,  should  be  continued  as  "an 
Assistant''  to  these  Clerks  with  a  salary  of  £150  a  year."* 
It  was  in  this  humble  capacity  that  Blathwayt  began  his 
long  and  intimate  official  connection  with  the  colonies. 
After  some  years  of  assiduous  attention  to  this  work,  his 
unquestionably  great  business  abiHty  and  his  unrivalled 

*  When  in  1676  Southwell  asked  to  be  reheved  from  this  work,  the  Lords 
of  Trade  were  ordered  to  decide  upon  a  suitable  reward  for  his  services 
"in  putting  the  many  Papers  depending  before  their  Lordships  into  very- 
good  method,  which  were  in  some  disorder  when  delivered  up  by  the  late 
Councill  of  Plantations."    P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  658. 

^  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  p.  249. 

'  In  1679,  they  were  Sir  John  Nicholas,  Sir  Robert  Southwell,  Sir  Phillip 
Lloyd,  and  Sir  Thomas  Doleman.    Ibid.  p.  1231. 

*  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  658,  664,  665.  In  1677,  on  the  strength  of  a  report 
from  the  Committee  that  his  "Diligence  is  very  great,"  Blathwayt's  salary 
was  raised  to  £250.  Ibid.  p.  743.  The  Clerks  of  the  Privy  Council  were 
paid  for  this  work  at  the  rate  of  £400  yearly.  In  addition,  two  clerks 
were  employed,  and  there  were  various  incidental  expenses,  among  which 
may  be  mentioned  the  cost  of  books,  maps,  and  treaties  purchased  for  the 
Conmiittee's  use.  The  total  disbursements  were  about  £1300  yearly, 
while  the  superseded  Council  had  cost  £7000.  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676- 
1679,  PP-  249,  282,  299,  642,  740,  802,  898,  969,  1075. 

s 


in 


( • 


r  I 


1 

II 

1 

I  ! 


f 


1        •    ' 


258 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


knowledge  of  these  matters  brought  him  the  position  of 
Secretary  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  and  made  him  the  most 
influential  person  in  the  colonial  administrative  system. 

For  somewhat  over  twenty  years  the  Lords  of  Trade 
governed  the  colonies.    The  Committee's  personnel  changed 
with  the  passing  years,^  but  its  active  members  were  always 
the  chief  state  officials.^    Hence  its  decisions  were  virtually 
invariably  accepted.     As  a  result,  colonial  affairs  were  ad- 
ministered with  a  directness  and  lack  of  delay  hitherto 
unknown,  and  not  again  encountered  imtil  a  hundred  years 
later,  when  a  special  Secretary  of  State  for  the  Colonies  was 
created.    The  Lords  of  Trade  corresponded  with  the  colo- 
nial governors  and  prepared  their  instructions;  they  de- 
manded  and  received  detailed  reports  from  the  colonies 
and  carefully  watched  the  course  of  their  development — 
economic,   fiscal,   and  political.     Every  colonial  question 
came  before  them,  and  the  policy  adopted  was  in  nearly 
every  instance  an  expression  of  their  views. 

These  various  boards  and  committees,  together  with  the 
Privy  Council  and  the  Secretary  of  State  entrusted  with 

*  For  the  membership  in  1679,  see  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  819,  820;  C.  C. 
1677-1680,  p.  355.  In  1686,  this  Committee  consisted  of  40  members,  and 
in  1688  James  II  ordered  all  the  Lords  of  the  Privy  Council  to  be  a  stand- 
ing Committee  for  Trade  and  Plantations.  Ibid.  1685-1688,  pp.  219,  489; 
C.  0.  391/6,  ff.  123-125. 

2  For  instance,  the  meeting  of  May  3,  1677,  was  attended  by  the  Lord 
Treasurer,  the  Lord  Privy  Seal,  the  Duke  of  Albemarie,  the  Earls  of  Craven, 
Bath,  and  Bridgewater,  the  Lord  Chamberlain,  the  Speaker,  and  by  the 
Secretaries  of  State,  Williamson  and  Coventry.  On  Nov.  8,  1677, 
were  present  the  Lord  Privy  Seal,  the  Earl  of  Craven,  Secretary  Williamson, 
and  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer.    Ibid.  391/2,  S.  31,  145. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  259 


colonial  affairs,  were  the  principal  organs  of  the  central  ad- 
ministrative system,  by  means  of  which  the  colonies  were 
governed.  One  of  their  main  duties,  if  not  the  chief  one, 
was  to  see  that  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation  were 
effectively  executed,  for  these  laws  embodied  the  essence  of 
English  colonial  policy.^  In  addition,  two  other  adminis- 
trative departments  participated  actively  in  this  specific 
work,  the  Admiralty  and  the  Treasury.^    Both  of  these 

1  The  government  used  all  its  resources  to  this  end,  even  the  diplomatic 
service.  England's  representatives,  especially  those  in  Holland,  were  con- 
tinually on  the  lookout  for  illegal  trade  between  the  colonies  and  the  coim- 
tries  to  which  they  were  accredited,  and  the  Dutch  government  was  even 
asked  to  assist  in  its  suppression.  In  1662,  Sir  George  Downing  advised 
the  government  that  several  ships  had  arrived  in  Holland  directly  from 
Barbados.  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  III,  f.  loi ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  334, 
335.  In  1668,  Sir  WilHam  Temple,  the  EngUsh  Ambassador  at  the  Hague, 
was  instructed  as  follows :  "You  must  make  it  your  business  to  be  inform'd 
very  partioilarly  of  Three  Merchant  Ships,  fitting  now  at  Amsterdam,  for 
the  Barbadoes,  with  several  manufactures  for  their  lading ;  and  if  you  have 
an  opportunity  then,  to  advertise  the  Govemour  thereof,  that  he  may 
seize  them,  because  it  is  a  great  breach  of  the  Act  of  Navigation,  and  yet 
so  acceptable  to  the  People,  upon  that  Island,  that  it  may  contribute  much 
to  the  debauching  of  them,  at  least  from  their  dependance  upon  England." 
This  inquiry  was  to  be  made  as  fully  and  as  privately  as  was  possible. 
Arlington's  Letters  (London,  1701)  I,  pp.  360,361.  In  1685,  the  EngHsh 
Envoy,  Bevil  Skelton,  presented  to  the  States-General  a  memorial,  to  the 
effect  that  many  EngUsh  vessels  came  directly  from  the  English  colonies 
to  the  Netherlands  and  requesting  them  to  pass  an  act,  whereby  their 
Admiralty  would  be  enjoined  to  assist  the  EngHsh  consuls  in  preventing 
this.  B.  T.  Commercial  Series  I,  6,  A  31.  In  this  year,  the  Lord  High 
Treasurer,  Rochester,  authorized  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  to 
pay  Mr.  Nodges's  bill  for  expenses  in  viewing  several  ships  from  the  English 
colonies  in  the  River  Maas  and  at  Rotterdam.  Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters, 
Customs  10,  f.  27. 

2  A  description  of  the  administrative  side  of  the  system  of  imperial 
defence  is  not  germane  to  the  purpose  of  this  work. 


I 


II 


If! 


*f 


p 


I 


!      .1 


« 


260 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


departments  and  their  subordinate  boards,  respectively  the 
Navy  and  the  Customs,  were  prominently  concerned  in 
carrying  into  effect  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation. 

The  EngHsh  admiralty  jurisdiction  had  already  at  an  early 
date  been  extended  to  America,  but  untH  the  Common- 
wealth no  extensive  use  had  been  made  thereof.    It  was 
then  not  only  employed  to  condemn  vessels  seized  as  prizes 
in  the  Dutch  and  Spanish  wars,  but  also  foreign  ships  caught 
trading  to  the  West  Indian  colonies  in  violation  of  the 
Navigation  Acts  of  1650  and  1651.^     After  the  Restoration, 
James,  Duke  of  York,  was  appointed  Lord  High  Admiral 
of  England,  and,  by  a  supplementary  commission  issued  in 
1662,  he  was  granted  the  same  extensive  powers  over  the 
colonies.^    Not  only  was  the  Admiralty  entitled  to  specific 
dues,  such  as  those  arising  from  condemned  prizes,  but  in 
addition  vessels  seized  for  violating  certain  clauses  of  the 
commercial  code  were  triable  in  the  admiralty  courts.    In 
order  to  carry  these  powers  into  effect,  the  Lord  High 
Admiral  appointed  deputies  in  the  crown  colonies,  and  ad- 
miralty courts  were  erected  in  them.     Furthermore,  towards 
the  end  of  the  period,  the  ships  of  the  navy  were  especially 
instructed  to  seize  aU  illegal  traders  and  some  were  stationed 
in  the  colonies  for  this  specific  purpose. 

The  EngHsh  Treasury's  jurisdiction  over  the  colonies  was 
more  extensive  ^nd  intimate.  In  addition  to  its  interest 
in  securing  the  Crown's  share  of  condemnations  in  the  col- 
onies for  violation  of  the  Acts  of  Trade,  the  Treasury  was 

» Beer,  Origins,  pp.  334-337,  39i. 
^  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  245. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  261 

directly  concerned  in  the  strict  enforcement  of  these  laws, 
in  so  far  as  their  provisions  tended  to  increase  the  English 
customs  revenue.  Moreover,  the  enforcement  of  the  enu- 
meration clauses  was  to  a  large  extent  under  the  direct 
control  of  the  English  customs  officials.  They  issued  the 
bonds  to  vessels  sailing  from  England,  and  it  was  in  such 
ships  that  most  of  the  enumerated  goods  were  exported 
from  the  colonies.^  These  English  officials  were  responsi- 
ble that  no  ship  departed  from  England  without  having 
given  such  bonds,  and,  in  case  any  eluded  their  vigilance, 
they  ordered  their  seizure  upon  arrival  in  the  colonies.^ 
In  such  instances,  the  cooperation  of  the  authorities  in 
the  colonies  was  required,  but  where  the  bond  had  been 
actually  given  in  England,  its  enforcement  depended 
solely  upon  the  home  government.  Besides,  by  the  Act 
of  Navigation  of  1660,  the  colonial  governors  were  re- 
quired to  send  twice  a  year  copies  of  the  bonds  taken 
by  them  to  the   Custom-House  in  London.^     Naturally 

1  Naturally  such  bonds  would  be  issued  only  to  ships  qualified  to  trade 
to  the  colonies,  and  hence  these  officials  also  kept  unfree  ships  out  of  this 

trade. 

2  In  1672,  the  Lords  of  the  Treasury  wrote  to  the  Governors  of  Barbados, 
Virginia,  and  Jamaica  that  they  had  reason  to  believe  that  six  ships,  specifi- 
cally designated,  had  sailed  for  the  American  colonies  without  having 
given  bonds,  and  ordered  them  to  seize  any  or  all  of  these  ships  upon  arrival. 
Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1669-1672,  p.  1232. 

3  12  Ch.  II,  c.  18,  §  xix.  On  Sept.  6,  1663,  Governor  Charles  Cal- 
vert wrote  to  Lord  Baltimore  that  he  had  received  two  letters  from  the 
London  Custom-House  about  the  Act  of  Navigation,  which  he  would 
answer  by  these  ships  and  that  he  would  "send  Copys  of  This  yeares  bonds 
to  y^  Lopp  &  not  to  them."  Calvert  Papers  I,  p.  245.  This  custom  was 
kept  up  by  Calvert,  and  the  papers  were  delivered  by  Lord  Baltimore  to 


I   II' 


fi 


r  ^ 


I  1 


!l 


262 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


the  enforcement  of  such  bonds,  which,  however,  covered 
only  a  small  portion  of  the  total  quantity  of  enumerated 
goods  exported,  devolved  mainly  upon  the  colonial  au- 
thorities. Even  though  the  copies  of  these  bonds  were 
not  regularly  sent  to  London,  the  English  government 
had  other  sources  of  information,^  and,  while  not  argus- 
eyed,  kept  a  close  watch  on  the  course  of  colonial  trade. 
Wherever  fraud  was  suspected,  the  colonial  governors  were 
instructed  by  the  Treasury  to  prosecute  the  offenders.^ 

Thus  the  enforcement  of  the  policy  of  enumeration  was 
from  the  outset  largely  in  the  hands  of  the  Treasury  and  its 
subordinate  officials.  Their  duties  were  greatly  expanded 
when,  in  1673,  Parliament  imposed  the  plantation  duties  and 
entrusted  their  management  to  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Customs.  This  board's  work  m  enforcing  that  law  and  the 
enumeration  clauses  quickly  spread  to  the  other  provisions 
of  the  system,  untH  ultimately  the  whole  commercial  code 

the  Treasury  and  by  them  to  the  Customs.    Ibid.  pp.  263,  264,  279,  295; 
Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1669-1672,  p.  iioi. 

^  By  Order  in  CouncU  of  Aug.  15,  1662,  the  Lord  High  Treasurer  and 
the  customs  officials  were  ordered  to  take  care  that  the  enumeration  clauses 
were  observed,  as  Sir  George  Downing  had  sent  advice  "that  divers  Eng- 
hsh  Shipps  laden  in  Barbadoes  are  lately  arrived  in  Holland  without  touch- 
ing m  England."  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  IH,  f.  loi ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I  pp 
334,  335-  '  ^^' 

^On  Jan.  14,  1673,  Treasurer  ChflFord  wrote  to  the  Governors  of 
Massachusetts,  Virginia,  Antigua,  Montserrat,  and  Nevis,  mentioning 
specffic  ships -nine  in  aU-that  had  laden  within  their  respective 
junsdictions  enumerated  goods,  which  were  then  exported  directly  to  Ire 
land.  He  stated,  that  he  assumed  that  bonds  had  been  taken  from  these 
vessels,  and  ordered  the  Governors  to  prosecute  them.  Cal.  Treas  Books 
1672-1675,  p.  35. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  263 

was  under  its  direct  supervision.  In  1686,  the  Com- 
missioners of  the  Customs  stated  that  the  entire  body  of 
these  laws  was  imder  their  care  and  control  and  that  it 
was  their  business  to  maintain  a  imiform  and  efl&cient 
system.^  At  this  time,  the  board  was  looked  upon  as  the 
special  guardian  of  the  system's  integrity.  The  detailed  in- 
structions issued  for  the  guidance  of  the  local  officials  were 
prepared  by  them,^  and  at  times  orders  were  even  sent  by 
them  or  by  the  Treasury  directly  to  the  colonial  governors.^ 
On  all  questions  requiring  detailed  fiscal  or  economic  knowl- 
edge, the  government  sought  the  advice  of  these  Commis- 
sioners. They  sedulously  watched  the  working  of  the 
system  and  recommended  measures  calculated  to  secure 
its  greater  efficiency.  Thus,  in  1683,  they  advised  that  the 
Irish  customs  officials  be  instructed  to  send  returns  of  the 
ships  clearing  for  the  colonies  in  that  kingdom  and  entering 
from  them.*  Shortly  thereafter,  they  proposed  that  Eng- 
land's representatives  in  France,  Spain,  the  Netherlands, 
Denmark,  Sweden,  and  the  Hanse  towns  be  instructed  to 
use  all  diligence  to  discover  ships  arriving  there  directly 
from  the  colonies  with  the  enumerated  products.^    In  1685, 

1  C.  O.  324/4,  ff.  213-218;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  187,  188. 

2  C.  O.  324/4,  ff.  151-166;  ibid.  5/904,  ff-  329-332;  ibid.  1/58,  73,  73!; 
C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  77,  258,  270. 

*  In  1684,  the  Privy  Council  ordered  that  a  letter  be  written  and  sent 
by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  to  the  colonial  governors,  requiring 
them  to  examine  into  the  performance  of  the  conditions  of  the  eniunerated 
bonds  given  there  and  to  prosecute  in  all  cases  of  non-fulfilment.  P.  C. 
Cal.  I,  p.  71. 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  477,  478. 
^  Ibid.  p.  563. 


li 


j£!L' 


H 


Hill 


n 


m 


li 


i 


264 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


they  recommended  that  the  ships  of  the  navy  be  again  in- 
structed to  seize  all  foreign  vessels  trading  to  the  colonies.^ 
These  are  but  a  few  instances  of  this  board's  multifarious 
activities  in  colonial  administration. 

Each  of  these  three  departments  of  the  central  adminis- 
trative system  —  the  Privy  Council  with  its  committees 
and  the  boards  of  trade  and  plantations  more  or  less  directly 
responsible  to  it,  the  Admiralty,  and  the  Treasury  —  had  its 
own  distinct  representatives  in  the  royal  provinces.  In  these 
colonies,  the  chief  local  agent  charged  with  the  execution 
of  the  laws  of  trade  was  the  governor,  who  was  appointed 
by  the  Crown  and  was  immediately  accoimtable  to  it  and  to 
the  Privy  Council.  His  duties  in  this  regard  were  statutory. 
By  the  Acts  themselves  the  governor  was  obKged  to  take 
an  oath  to  obey  the  law,  and  any  neglect  thereof  made  him 
liable  to  dismissal  and  to  the  payment  of  a  heavy  fine  of 
£1000.  In  addition,  he  was  also  charged  with  the  clerical 
duties  involved  in  carrying  them  into  effect.^  The  Acts 
made  no  distinction  between  the  royal  provinces  and  the  pro- 
prietary and  charter  colonies,  and  hence  these  duties  were 
by  law  also  imposed  upon  the  governors  of  the  latter  colonies. 
But  the  executive  heads  of  these  jurisdictions  were  in  no 
sense  of  the  word  agents  of  the  central  administrative  sys- 
tem. They  were  not  responsible  to,  nor  could  they  be  con- 
trolled by,  any  department  of  the  English  government,  but 
were  appointed  by  the  proprietors  or  chosen  by  the  people 


§  xii, 


>  C.  O.  324/4,  ff.  142,  143 ;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  26,  27. 

2  12  Ch.  II,  c.  18,  §§  ii,  xix;  15  Ch.  H,  c.  7,  §  viii ;  22  &  23  Ch.  II,  c.  26, 

« • 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  265 

of  these  semi-independent  jurisdictions.  Notwithstanding 
this  fact,  since  the  Acts  so  provided,  the  English  govern- 
ment naturally  instructed  both  the  royal  governors^  and  the 
authorities  in  the  other  colonies  carefully  to  enforce  the 
law.  In  1663,^  letters  were  written  to  the  royal  governors 
and  also  to  the  authorities  in  Maryland  and  New  England, 

'^reciting  the  provisions  of  the  Navigation  Act  and  their 
serious  obligations  under  them,  and  stating  that  informa- 
tion had  been  received  that  the  law  was  violated,  "through 
the  dayly  practises  and  designes  sett  on  foote,  by  trading 
into  forrain  parts  from  Virginia  Mariland,  and  other  his 
Majesties  Plantations,  both  by  Land  and  Sea  as  well  unto 
the  Monados,  and  other  Plantations  of  the  Hollanders,  as 
unto  Spaine,  Venice,  and  Holland."  This  state  of  affairs 
was  attributed  to  the  neglect  of  the  governors,  both  in  not 
seeing  that  the  vessels  arriving  had  certificates  that  they 
were  qualified  to  trade  in  the  colonies,  and  also  in  not  taking 
bonds  before  the  ships  with  enumerated  commodities  on 
board  were  allowed  to  depart.  The  governors  were  ac- 
cordingly instructed  to  repair  their  neglect,  and  to  send 
copies  of  these  bonds  twice  a  year  to  the  Custom-House  in 
London,  together  with  accounts  of  all  vessels  taking  in  cargoes 
in  the  colonies. 
As  no  method  was  devised  for  obliging  the  proprietary 

*  and  charter  governors  to  take  the  statutory  oaths  to  obey 

1  For  the  instructions  to  Barbados  and  Virginia  in  1661  to  1663,  see 
Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  ff.  333  et  seq.;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  359;  Va. 
Mag.  Ill,  pp.  15-20;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  24,  368. 

2  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  III,  ff.  4S0,  45i ;  P-  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  365-367  ; 
N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  44-46. 


266 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


#) 


I 

I 


H 


the  laws  of  trade,  it  depended  mainly  upon  their  own  voli- 
tion ;  and,  in  general,  but  the  scantest  attention  was  paid 
by  these  colonies  to  this  section  of  the  law.    Moreover, 
for  some  time  no  regular  system  was  adopted  for  securing 
these  oaths  from  the  royal  governors.    In  1668,  the  Council 
of  Trade  reported  that  several  of  the  governors  had  been 
remiss  in  this  respect,^  and  four  years  later,  the  House  of 
Commons  requested  the  King  to  see  that  these  oaths  were 
taken.2    During  the  following  few  years,  the  attention  of 
the  English  government  was  forcibly  directed  to  this  subject 
by  Massachusetts'  recalcitrant  attitude,  which  threatened 
to  disrupt  the  entire  colonial  system.    In  1675,  the  Com- 
missioners  of  the   Customs  reported  in  detail  on  illegal 
trade  in  the  colonies,  and  urged  the  necessity  of  all  the 
governors  taking  these  oaths.^    On  the  Lords  of  Trade 
requesting  full  information  as  to  the  exact  situation  concern- 
ing these  oaths,  the  Commissioners,  however,  replied  that 
they  could  not  furnish  it,  since  this  matter  was  not  within 
their  cognizance.^*    This  information  was  then  sought  from 
the   Secretary  of  State's  office.^    This   lack   of  essential 
knowledge  indicated  an  unsatisfactory  state  of  affairs,  both 
in  England  and  in   the  colonies,  and  demanded  action. 

*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1884. 
2  Com.  Journals  IX,  p.  244. 

«  C.  O.  1/34,  74,  75;   C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  231. 

*  C.  O.  324/4,  f.  22;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  23s,  287,  296. 

^  On  Jan.  10,  1676,  by  command  of  the  Lords  of  Trade,  Sir  Robert 
SouthweU  wrote  to  WiUiam  Bridgeman  to  inquire  which  of  the  governors 
"have  taken  or  not  taken  the  oaths  they  ought,  that  accordingly  they  may 
be  written  to  for  the  better  execution  of  the  said  Acts."  Cal.  Dom.  1675- 
1676,  p.  505;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  309. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  267 

Accordingly,  in  1676,  a  circular  letter  enjoining  strict  obedi- 
ence to  the  laws  of  trade  was  sent  to  the  colonial  governors;^ 
and,  at  the  same  time,  the  Attorney-General  was  instructed 
to  prepare  a  commission  for  administering  to  them  the  stat- 
utory oaths.2    To  him  was  also  entrusted  the  preparation 
of  the  form  of  the  oath  to  be  taken ;   and,  after  his  work 
had  been  approved  by  the  government,  the  oath  was  for- 
mally administered  to  the  royal  governors  in  1677  and  1678.' 
The  multifarious  duties  of  these  governors,  apart  from 
the  high  dignity  of  their  position,  would  not  peimit  them  to 
attend  in  person  to  aU  the  minor  details  involved  in  enforc- 
ing the  laws  of  trade.*    Hence  this  work  was  entrusted  by 
them  to  a  subordinate  clerk,  who  in  time  became  known  as 
the  clerk  of  the  naval  office,  or  simply  as  the  naval  officer.^ 
Though  not  directly  mentioned  in  any  of  the  laws  of  trade 
and  navigation  prior  to  the  administrative  statute  of  1696, 
the  naval  officer  early  became  a  prominent  feature  of  the 
loc'al  administrative  system.^    During  the  course  of  the 

1  c.  o.  324/4,  ff.  37-39;  c.  c.  1675-1676,  pp.  369-371, 381. 

2  C  O.  324/4,  ff.  49  et  seq.;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  374,  378,  379- 

3  C.  O.  324/4,  f.  S3 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  633,  664,  740,  741 ;  No.  Ca. 
Col  Rec.  L  pp.  227,  228;  C.  C.  167 5-1676,  PP.  385,  389,  39o;  ibid.  1677- 
1680,  pp.  174,  204,  266, 354 ;  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  PP- 170,  227. 

4  In  1663,  Governor  Calvert  of  Maryland  wrote  to  Lord  Baltimore  that  he 
had  received  the  Staple  Act  of  that  year  and  would  observe  it  diHgently,  but 
he  wanted  to  know  if  every  cargo  had  to  be  searched  in  detail  for  foreign 
goods,  as  this  would  be  "an  Endlesse  trouble  both  to  the  Officers  and  Mast 
&  Owners  of  such  goods."     Calvert  Papers  I,  p.  242. 

5  See  the  report  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  to  the  Treasury  on 
this  officer,  dated  Feb.  16, 1694.    Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  22,61 7,  ff  •  141  et  seq 

« In  1665,  Sir  Thomas  Modyford  wrote  that  he  had  "setUed  y«  NauaU 
Office"  in  Jamaica.    C.  O.  1/19,  27. 


i^ 


268 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Restoration  period,  such  officers  were  appointed  in  a  number 
of  the  crown  colonies.^    He  was  the  personal  representative 
of  the  Governor  and  was  entrusted  by  him  with  the  detailed 
work  of   enforcing   the   commercial   code:    the   giving   of 
bonds,  the  examination  of  ships'  papers  and  cargoes,  and 
the  entrance  and  clearance  of  vessels.     The  EngHsh  govern- 
ment had  frequently  insisted  that  full  accounts  of  all  such 
details  should  be  regularly  forwarded  to  England, ^  but  the 
governors   had   only   most   intermittently   complied   with 
these  instructions.     Shortly  before  1680,  however,  the  naval 
officers  in  the  West  Indies  began  to  send  with  fair  regularity 
to  England  detailed  accounts,  known  as  naval  office  lists, 
giving  more  or  less  full  particulars  of  all  vessels  arriving  and 
departing  as  well  as  of  their  cargoes.^    Later,  this  custom 
was  introduced  in  the  continental  colonies. 

*  In  1682,  Massachusetts  established  naval  oflSces  at  Boston  and  Salem,  and 
in  the  same  year  Rhode  Island  also  created  such  an  office.  C.  O.  1/48,  34 ; 
Mass.  Col.  Rec.  V,  p.  337 ;  R.  I.  Col.  Rec.  Ill,  pp.  108-110, 119.  Such  offi- 
cers do  not,  however,  belong  to  the  same  category  as  do  those  appointed 
by  the  royal  governors.  After  the  revocation  of  the  New  England  charters 
and  the  establishment  of  royal  government,  Andros  appointed  a  naval  officer 
in  this  jurisdiction.     Goodrick,  Randolph  VI,  p.  253. 

2  In  1672,  for  instance,  the  King  wrote  to  the  Governors  of  Barbados, 
Montserrat,  Antigua,  Nevis,  St.  Kitts,  and  Jamaica:  "We  require  you  to 
send  to  Lord  Treasurer  Clififord  in  England  a  list  of  all  bonds  that  you  shall 
so  cause  to  be  taken,  with  an  account  of  all  ships,  their  burthen,  masters' 
names,  and  to  what  place  belonging  that  shall  lade  in  your  government 
yearly."  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1672-1675,  pp.  15,  16.  See  also  the  instructions 
issued  to  the  Earl  of  Carlisle  in  1678.    Ihid.  1676-1679,  pp.  928,  929. 

'  C.  O.  33/14  contains  such  naval  officers'  statements  from  Barbados  for 
the  years  1679  to  1709.  Ihid.  33/13  are  parallel  accounts  from  the  collec- 
tors of  the  customs  of  the  same  colony.  Ibid.  142/13  contains  similar 
statements  from  Jamaica,  covering  the  years  1685  to  1705.     Some  earlier 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  269 

As  any  neglect  of  these  naval  officers  to  perform  their 
duties  made  the  governor  Hable  to  severe  penalties,  it  was 
only  fitting  that  they  should  be  appointed  by  him.  Yet,  at 
a  comparatively  early  date,  these  officials  in  the  West  Indies 
began  to  be  appointed  in  England,  and  gradually  this  cus- 
tom spread  to  the  continent  until,  towards  the  middle  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  all  these  places  in  the  crown  colonies 
were  in  the  gift  of  the  Secretary  of  State.  This  practice 
originated  first  in  Barbados,  and  in  a  manner  which  throws 
considerable  light  on  the  administrative  methods  of  the  day. 
In  1676,  one  of  the  minor  positions  in  Barbados,  which 

accounts  must  have  been  sent  from  Jamaica,  for  in  1676  the  Governor,  Lord 
Vaughan,  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  that  he  had  instructed  the  Naval 
Officer  to  send  them  every  six  months,  and  in  1682  Governor  Lynch  wrote 
that  he  also  had  given  the  same  orders.    C.  C.  1675-1676,  P-  41 2  ;  thid.  1681- 
168s,  p.  283.    In  1681,  Governor  Stapleton  of  the  Leeward  Islands  was 
notified  that  the  officers  in  the  colonies  had  been  remiss  in  forwarding  exact 
accounts  of  their  trade,  and  he  was  instructed  to  direct  the  naval  officer  to 
keep  particular  accounts  of  aU  exports  and  imports,  with  fuU  details,  and  to 
send  them  to  the  Lords  of  Trade.    '  If  fit  officers  for  the  duty  be  wantmg,'  he 
was  ordered  to  appoint  them.     76fi.  i68i-i685,p.i4i.    There  are  available 
a  number  of  such  accounts  of  the  trade  of  these  islands  from  1680  on.    One 
statement,  giving  an  account  of  the  vessels  arriving  at  St.  Kitts  from  June 
of  1677  on,  refers  to  a  previous  account  sent  to  England.     C.  O.  1/46,  38 ; 
im.  1/47,  32  ;  iUd.  1/49,  Part  I,  18 ;  ihid.  i/s3,  87  ;  M-  i/54.  Part  I,  9 ; 
ihid   1/64,  134.    The  existence  of  many  gaps  in  this  set  of  documents, 
is  due  in  the  main  to  the  fact  that  the  original  statements  were,  as  a  rule, 
sent  directly  to  the  Custom-House  in  London  and,  with  its  other  archives, 
they  were  subsequently  destroyed  by  fire.     The  Lords  of  Trade  wanted 
these  accounts  used  in  the  preparation  of  a  detailed  annual  schedule  of  im- 
perial trade,  but  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  reported  m  1679  that 
it  was  "a  Worke  of  Create  Difficulty  &  Charge  if  not  whoUy  impracti- 
cable to  extract  all  goods  imported  &  exported."  Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters, 
Customs  5,  f.  no.    See  also  ihid.  8,  ff.  4,  66-71. 


f 


\\ 


i!l 


I' 


)  * 


^' 


270 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


prior  thereto  had  been  at  the  disposal  of  the  Governor,  was 
fiUed  by  a  crown  appointee.    The  Governor,  Sir  Jonathan 
Atkins,  was  of  a  feariess  and  independent  character  and 
strenuously  objected  to  this  diminution  of  his  prerogative. 
In  reply  to  his  protest,  the  Secretary  of  State,  Sir  Henry 
Coventry,  wrote  that  in  future,  before  any  such  appoint- 
ments were  made  in  England,  he  would  investigate  whether  or 
no  the  place  were  patentable,  and,  further,  that  he  would  try 
to  persuade  the  King  to  establish  a  settled  rule  about  aU  the 
offices  in  the  colonies.^     While  this  correspondence  was  pro- 
ceeding,  one  Abraham  Langf ord  was  appointed  by  the  Crown 
as  Naval  Officer  of  Barbados,  with  permission  to  act  by 
deputy.2    Atkins  naturally  agam  objected,  and  unwisely  even 
refused  to  admit  Langford  to  the  office.^    On  November  28, 
1676,4  Secretary  Coventry  addressed  a  sharp  letter  of  re- 
buke to  Atkins,  and  ordered  him  to  recognize  Langford's 
patent  of  appointment.    He  added,  that  he  had  been  'just 
to  his  word'  about  this  general  subject  of  appointments, 
and  "had  not  only  Spoken  to  his  Majesty,  and  as  I  thought 
very  weU  prepared  him  towards  it,"  but  the  late  address  of 

'  Coventry  wrote:  "On  the  one  side  should  aU  Govemoursand  Generalls 
bestow  all  places,  there  would  be  but  little  left  for  the  King  to  oblige  or 
indeed  to  create  or  make  Dependants,  so  on  the  other  side  what  you  say  is 
very  true,  it  is  hard  when  a  Governor  hath  according  to  former  Presidents 
placed  a  Man  of  Honour  in  an  Imployment,  that  he  should  be  by  an  Ex- 
traordinary Command  put  out."  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  25,120  ff  90 
91,^112,  120;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  332,  449,  450. 

2  Ibid.  p.  379.    On  June  14,  1676,  Coventry  wrote  to  Atkins  that  he 
should  admit  Langford  into  this  office.    Ibid.  p.  403. 

'  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  22,617,  ff.  141,  142. 

*  Ibid.  25,120,  ff.  96-99. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  271 

Barbados  against  the  enumeration  of  sugar  and  the  affront 
offered  to  Langf ord's  patent  "make  the  Conjuncture  at 
present  improper."  Atkins  perforce  had  to  submit,  and 
Langford  enjoyed  his  patent  for  this  office  until  his  death 
several  years  thereafter.^  His  case  was  used  as  a  precedent, 
and  his  successors  in  the  office  at  Barbados  continued  to  be 
appointed  by  the  Crown.^  At  about  the  same  time,  in 
Jamaica  also,  the  naval  officer  began  to  be  nominated  in 
England.^    Although    so    appointed,   these   officials    were, 

1  In  1677,  Coventry  wrote  to  Atkins  about  this  general  subject,  and  the 
latter 's  expressed  opinion  "that  it  is  prejudicial!  to  Government  to  have 
Officers  nominated  here,"  stating  that  "his  Majesty  and  Councill  are  of 
another  Opinion,  and  that  it  concemeth  his  Majesty  to  be  a  little  better 
acquainted  with  those  that  bear  Offices  in  his  Plantations  then  of  late  he 
hath  been,  for  till  some  late  Orders  of  the  Councill,  his  Majesty  hardly 
knew  the  Lawe  or  the  men  by  which  his  Plantations  were  governed.  The 
Governor  was  the  only  person  known  to  him,  but  his  Majesty  was  resolved 
to  be  better  acquainted  with  them  and  let  them  know,  they  are  not  to  govern 
themselves,  but  be  governed  by  him."  He  further  added  that  "some  late 
Stubborn  Carriage  in  the  Plantations"  would  occasion  a  stricter  inquiry 
into  "their  Comportments,"  than  hitherto  had  been  made.  Brit.  Mus., 
Add.  MSS.  25,120,  f.  120. 

2  In  1682,  shortly  before  his  death,  Abraham  Langford  petitioned  that  his 
son,  who  had  acted  as  his  deputy,  might  be  his  successor.  Sir  Richard 
Button,  the  Governor,  also  sought  the  place  for  his  brother.  C.  C.  1681- 
1685,  pp.  279,  293,  340,  382,  474.  Neither  received  the  appointment. 
The  actual  nominee  was  apparently  one  Thomas  Gleave,  who,  under  James 
II,  was  succeeded  by  Archibald  Carmichael.  Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  2441 
f.  22»>;  Add.  MSS.  22,617,  ff-  Ui,  142;  C.  O.  33/13  passim. 

3  In  1681,  one  Reginald  Wilson  appHed  for  a  patent  as  Naval  Officer  of 
Jamaica.  Sir  Thomas  Lynch,  who  had  governed  the  colony  ten  years  before, 
supported  this  petition,  stating  that  at  that  time  he  had  established  this 
office '  to  inspect  all  bills  of  lading  and  cocquets  that  I  might  not  be  surprised, 
but  that  the  several  Acts  of  Trade  and  Navigation  might  be  exactly  com- 
plied with  according  to  my  oath  and  duty.'    He  had  appointed  this  Wilson, 


}l 


1  '^i 


n 


272 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


however,  not  paid  by  the  English  Exchequer,  but  were  sup- 
ported by  fees  levied  on  the  vessels  trading  in  the  colonies. 
At  a  very  early  date,  it  was  seen  that  the  royal  governors 
and  their  subordinate  officials  were  not  able  to  secure  a  strict 
enforcement  of  the  laws  of  trade.    At  the  same  time,  it  was 
also  fully  realized  that,  as  there  were  no  imperial  officials 
of  any  description  in  the  proprietary  and  charter  colonies,  the 
laws  were  apt  to  be  ignored  by  the  local  authorities  in  these 
semi-independent  jurisdictions,  whenever  their  local  interests 
were  to  any  extent  adversely  affected.     Hence  arose  the 
demand  that  special  officials  be  appointed  by  the  EngHsh 
government  to  secure  the  execution  of  the  laws  of  trade  in  the 
colonies.    In  1662  and  1663,  the  chief  violation  complained  of 
was  the  illegal  shipment  of  tobacco  directly  to  New  Nether- 
land  and  Europe.^     The  Council  for  Foreign  Plantations 
devoted  considerable  attention  to  this  matter,  but  could 
devise  no  more  effective  remedy  than  the  despatch  of  special 
instructions  to  the  colonial  governors.^    Further  action  was 
demanded  by  the  Farmers  of  the  Customs,  who  were  directly 
interested,  in  so  much  as  this  illegal  trade  diminished  the 

who  had  performed  his  duties  very  exactly,  but  had  subsequently  been  dis- 
missed by  the  Earl  of  Carlisle  to  make  room  for  a  man  of  his  own  selection. 
As  Lynch's  recommendation  was  so  unqualified,  Wilson  received  the  ap- 
pointment. C.  O.  1/47,  53;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  107,  147,  148;  P.  C. 
Cal.  II,  p.  26.  On  Wilson,  see  also  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  267,  305,  306; 
Bodleian,  RawUnson  MSS.,  A  171,  f.  199;  Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  2724 
(Earl  of  CarHsle's  answer  to  charges  of  Sam.  Long). 

1  P.  C.  Register  Charter  II,  III,  S.  101,450,  451 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  334, 
335,  365-367 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  44-46 ;  Va.  Mag.  Ill,  pp.  18,  19. 

2  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  345,  357 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  44-46;  C.  O. 
1/14,  59,  f.  53. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  273 

English  customs  revenue.  They  complained  ^  that  the 
colonial  and  English  traders  did,  "both  by  land  &  water 
carry  &  convey  greate  quantities  of  Tobacco  to  the  Dutch 
whose  Plantations  are  contiguous,  the  Custom  whereof 
would  amount  to  tenne  thousand  poimds  p.  ann.  or  upwards, 
thereby  eluding  the  late  Act  of  Navigation  and  defrauding 
his  Ma'*^."  As  a  remedy,  the  Farmers  proposed  to  send  at 
their  own  expense  officials  to  the  various  colonies  to  prevent 
such  illegal  practices.  The  Coimcil  for  Foreign  Plantations 
approved  of  this  suggestion,  and,  after  deciding  upon  the  pow- 
ers of  these  proposed  officials,  early  in  1664,  recommended 
its  adoption.^  The  government  ratified  this  recommendation, 
and  by  an  Order  in  Coimcil  of  April  22, 1664,  the  Farmers 
of  the  Customs  were  empowered  at  their  own  charge  to  send 
officers  to  the  colonies  to  see  to  the  execution  of  the  Naviga- 
tion Act.^  In  the  meanwhile,  however,  the  international 
situation  had  reached  a  critical  phase.  The  determination 
of  the  English  government  to  attack  the  Dutch  colony  of 
New  Netherland  and  the  successful  outcome  of  this  expedi- 
tion rendered  it  largely  imnecessary  to  send  these  customs 
officials  to  America,  since  this  centre  of  the  illegal  trade 
was  now  an  English  possession. 

Illegal  trade,  however,  by  no  means  disappeared.  To 
some  extent  it  was  even  facilitated  by  the  Dutch  war,  for 
the  temporary  dispensation  of  certain  clauses  of  the  Naviga- 

1  C.  O.  1/14,  59,  ff.  53,  54;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  p.  47 ;  C.  C.  1661-1668, 
no.  597. 

^  C.  O.  1/14,  59,  ff.  54-56;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  48-50;  C.  C.  1661- 
1668,  nos.  605,  644,  649. 

'  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  IV,  f.  79;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  377,  378. 

T 


it 


I 


H 


i 


74 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


W^l 


|!)j 


tion  Acts  was  used  to  cover  violations  of  the  provisions  that 
still  remained  in  force.^  In  some  more  or  less  sporadic  in- 
stances, the  enumerated  products  were  sent  directly  to  Eu- 
rope and  European  supplies  were  imported  directly  into  the 
colonies  from  places  other  than  England.^  On  December 
4,  1668,  the  Council  of  Trade  reported  to  Charles  II  that 
several  of  the  colonial  governors  had  been  remiss  in  the 
following  respects :  in  not  taking  the  oaths  to  enforce  the 
laws  of  trade  as  enjoined  by  statute ;  in  allowing  unquali- 
fied ships  to  trade;  in  not  obtaining  bonds  before  the 
enumerated  goods  were  shipped.  As  the  chief  remedy,  they 
proposed  that  the  Farmers  of  the  Customs  should  main- 
tain an  officer  in  each  colony  to  administer  the  oaths  to  the 

^  In  the  Leeward  Islands,  the  distress  caused  by  the  war  induced  the  local 
authorities  to  suspend  these  laws  temporarily.  In  1667,  the  Governor, 
Council,  and  Assembly  of  Nevis,  considering  the  great  scarcity,  ordered  that 
a  liberty  of  trade  be  granted  to  two  ships  of  Hamburg,  on  condition  that 
this  should  not  be  used  as  a  precedent.  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1631.  See 
also  no.  1669.  In  1668,  was  registered  a  complaint  to  the  effect  that  the 
Governor  of  Antigua  had  allowed  the  French  and  Dutch  to  trade  there. 
Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1667-1668,  pp.  439,  440. 

2  On  Oct.  29,  1667,  the  Treasury  wrote  to  Sir  John  Finch,  the  English 
resident  at  Florence,  in  reply  to  his  letters  concerning  an  English  ship  that 
had  arrived  at  Leghorn  with  part  of  her  cargo  from  Barbados,  instructing 
him  in  future  to  arrest  any  such  vessel.  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1667-1668,  p. 
198.  A  few  weeks  later,  the  Treasury  wrote  to  the  colonial  governors, 
stating  that  several  ships  had  gone  directly  from  the  colonies  to  Tangier, 
to  the  Mediterranean  ports,  and  to  other  places,  and  enjoining  upon  them' 
greater  care  in  the  enforcement  of  the  laws.  Ibid.  pp.  201,  202;  Treas. 
Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  I,  ff.  49-51.  Although  an  Enghsh  possession, 
Tangier  was  not  placed  within  the  barriers  of  the  colonial  system,  and  the 
enumerated  goods  were  not  allowed  to  be  shipped  there  directly.  On  this 
iUegal  trade  from  the  colonies  to  Tangier  and  the  attempt  to  legahze  it,  see 
P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  486,  499 ;  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1667-1668,  p.  449. 


! 

^ 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY   275 

governors,  that  only  vessels  whose  papers  this  officer  had 
seen  should  be  allowed  to  trade,  and  that  no  bond  or  secur- 
ity be  accepted  without  his  approval.^  This  report  was 
favorably  endorsed  by  the  Privy  Council,  and  early  ui  1669 
the  Farmers  of  the  Customs  were  ordered  to  send  to  the 
colonies  or  to  select  in  them,  and  to  maintain  at  their  own 
charge,  one  or  more  persons  in  each  plantation,  "whom  his 
Majesty  shall  Approve  and  Authorise,"  to  administer  the 
oaths  to  the  governors  and  to  see  that  the  law  was  obeyed. 
At  the  same  time,  letters  were  despatched  to  the  Governors 
of  Virginia,  Maryland,  New  York,  and  the  island  colonies, 
ordermg  them  to  take  the  statutory  oaths  and  to  assist  these 
officers.^ 

It  is  not  quite  clear  to  what  extent  the  Farmers  of  the 
Customs  used  this  authority.  In  Virginia,  they  named 
Edward  Digges,  a  prominent  citizen  of  the  colony,  as  their 
representative,^  and  probably  in  some  of  the  other  colonies 
also  officers  were  appointed.'*  But,  in  general,  no  extensive 
change  in  the  local  administrative  machinery  was,  or  could 
be,  made  in  the  short  space  of  time  during  which  the  system 

1  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1884.  On  Oct.  5,  1668,  in  connection  with  a 
complaint  from  the  Farmers  of  the  Customs  about  ships  trading  directly 
from  Barbados  to  Tangier,  the  Treasury  had  passed  a  resolution  that  the 
Farmers  should  have  liberty  to  have  an  officer  in  each  colony  to  see  that  all 
ships  traded  according  to  the  law.     Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1667-1668,  p.   449. 

2  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  VIII,  f.  179 ;  P-  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  499-501  • 

3  See  warrant  of  Aug.  25,  1669,  approving  the  appointment  of  Edward 
Digges  by  the  Farmers  of  the  Customs.  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  40 ;  Va.  Mag. 
XIX,  pp.  350,  351. 

*  In  1670,  Secretary  Ludwell  of  Virginia  referred  to  a  letter  from  "Mr. 
Delavell  the  farmers  Comiss'r  at  New  Yorke."    Va.  Mag.  XIX,  p.  354. 


i 


276 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


ii 


It 


jiiii 


of  farming  the  revenue  was  continued  in  England.  In 
1 67 1,  this  method  was  abandoned,  and  the  Commonwealth 
precedent  was  followed  in  appointing  Commissioners  of 
the  Customs,  at  whose  head  was  placed  Sir  George 
Downing.^ 

Like  the  Farmers  whom  they  had  superseded,  this  board 
was  mainly  intent  upon  securing  as  large  a  customs  revenue 
as  was  possible;  and,  as  the  only  branch  of  illegal  trade  in 
the  colonies  that  might  seriously  interfere  with  this  purpose 
was  an  extensive  evasion  of  the  enumeration  of  tobacco, 
they  concentrated  their  attention  on  Virginia  and  Maryland. 
On  October  31,  1671,  a  warrant  was  issued,  appointing 
Edward  Digges  "Agent  at  Virginia,"  with  extensive  powers 
of  control  over  the  colony's  trade.  His  salary  of  £250  was 
made  payable  by  the  Receiver- General  of  the  Customs  in 
England.2  No  provision  was  made  for  a  similar  officer  in 
Maryland,   because   its   Governor,    Charles   Calvert,   was 

1  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1669-1672,  p.  935 ;  Atton  and  HoUand,  The  Kings 
Customs,  p.  103. 

2  Digges  was  instructed  to  see  that  the  enumeration  bonds  were  taken  and 
to  send  copies  of  them,  together  with  detailed  accounts  of  all  ships  arriving 
and  departing,  to  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs.  Simultaneously  with 
his  appointment,  a  letter  was  sent  to  Governor  Berkeley,  informing  him  of 
the  new  method  of  collecting  the  English  customs  revenue,  "whereof  the 
duty  on  the  tobaccos  of  Virginia  are  a  considerable  branch, "  and  stating  that 
information  had  been  received  of  many  evasions  of  the  enumeration  of  to- 
bacco. Berkeley  was  ordered  to  prevent  these  frauds  and  strictly  to  enforce 
all  the  laws  of  trade,  and  he  was  further  instructed  that  the  security  of  aU 
enumeration  bonds  taken  by  him  had  to  be  approved  by  Edward  Digges, 
"whom  we  have  appointed  to  take  care  of  same  and  to  transmit  copies  of 
said  bonds  to  the  Customs  Commissioners  in  London."  Cal.  Treas.  Books, 
1669-167  2,  p.  1 1 26.    Cf.  p.  948. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  277 

already  very  methodical  in  enforcing  the  laws  and  regularly 
sent  to  England  copies  of  the  bonds  taken  by  him,  as  well 
as  accounts  of  the  colony's  exports.  In  view  of  the  salary 
paid  to  Digges  in  Virginia,  Lord  Baltimore,  however,  thought 
that  his  son,  the  Governor,  was  also  entitled  to  some  remuner- 
ation for  his  zeal,  and  secured  for  him  a  salary  of  £200  from 
the  English  Treasury.^  This  system  of  employing  surveyors 
—  this  was  the  technical  designation  used  by  the  Treasury  — 
in  Virginia  and  Maryland  remained  in  effect  only  a  short 
time,  for  in  1673  Parliament  imposed  the  plantation  duties 
and  specifically  entrusted  their  management  and  collection 
to  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs.  It  thus  became  the 
statutory  duty  of  this  board  to  appoint  customs  officials  in 
all  the  colonies. 

Shortly  thereafter,  in  the  fall  of  1673,  the  Commissioners 
of  the  Customs  proceeded  to  act  upon  their  new  powers  and 
appointed  collectors  of  the  customs  in  all  the  colonies  except 
New  England,  North  Carolina,  New  York,  and  New  Jersey.^ 
In  1674,  appointments  were  also  made  in  these  last  three 

^  The  warrant  for  this  salary  was  issued  only  in  November  of  1672,  but  it 
was  paid  from  Christmas  of  167 1  on.  This  salary  was  to  be  paid  to  Calvert 
until  he  should  "appoint  some  one  to  receive  same:  same  to  be  for  the 
encouragement  of  said  Calvert  so  long  as  he  shall  continue  to  perform  the 
said  service."  On  June  2,  1673,  Calvert  wrote  to  Baltimore,  thanking  him 
for  procuring  this  salary  and  stating  that,  as  instructed,  he  would  appoint 
a  person  to  receive  it.  The  salary  was,  however,  always  paid  to  him.  Cal. 
Treas.  Books,  1669-1672,  pp.  iioi,  1137,  1345;  Calvert  Papers  I,  pp.  263, 
264,  279,  29s,  300. 

2  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1672-1675,  pp.  424,  427,  No  provision  naturally  was 
made  for  the  rudimentary  settlements  in  the  Bahamas,  nor  for  Newfoundland, 
which  was  not  considered  a  colony. 


278 


THE   OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


I 


I 


I 


colonies,^  and  finally,  in  1678,  a  collector  for  New  England  was 
chosen  in  the  person  of  Edward  Randolph.^  Apart  from 
Randolph,  there  were  several  men  among  these  original  ap- 
pointees of  1673,  and  those  shortly  thereafter  succeeding 
them,  who  played  a  prominent  part  in  colonial  poHtics.^ 
Digges  and  Calvert  were  naturally  not  continued  in  their 
former  positions,  and  their  exceptionally  large  salaries  were 
stopped,^  but  they  were  appointed  collectors  in  their  respec- 
tive colonies.  Digges  was  Auditor  of  Virginia  and  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Council,  and,  possibly  on  account  of  the  pressure 
of  other  work  or  because  of  ill-health  —  he  died  shortly  after- 
wards —  but  more  probably  in  consequence  of  the  withdrawal 
of  his  salary,  he  declined  the  position.^  In  his  stead,  early 
in  1675,  was  appointed  Giles  Bland,^  who  was  destined  to  a 
short,  but  turbulent  and  tragic,  career  in  Virginia  politics. 
In  Maryland,  Governor  Calvert  accepted  the  office  and  con- 
tinued in  it  until  the  death  of  his  father.  Lord  Baltimore, 
when  he  succeeded  to  the  proprietorship.  In  his  place  shortly 
thereafter,  in  1676,  was  appointed  Christopher  Rousby,"^  who, 
like  Bland  in  Virginia,  was  to  meet  an  untimely  and  violent 

*  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1672-167 5,  pp.  498,  501,  521,  522. 

*  Ibid.  1676-1679,  p.  1023.  In  1678,  on  the  recommendation  of  Governor 
Andros  of  New  York,  a  Collector  and  a  Comptroller  were  also  appointed  at 
Pemaquid.     Ibid.  p.  1018. 

'  For  these  appointments  up  to  1679,  see  ibid.  1672-1675,  pp.  613,  667, 
866;  ibid.  1676-1679,  pp.  288,  312,  641,  1018,  1093,  1211. 

*  Ibid.  1672-1675,  pp.  437,  452,  456. 

*  Ibid.  p.  667  ;  Va.  Mag.  XIV,  p.  270. 

*  February  i,  1675,  warrant  from  Treasurer  Danby  to  the  Customs  board 
to  appoint  Giles  Bland.     Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1672-1675,  p.  667. 

^  Ibid.  1676-1679,  pp.  229,  230,  373. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  279 


death.  In  addition  to  Calvert,  there  was  on  the  original  list 
one  other  proprietary  Governor,  Sir  John  Heydon  of  the 
Bermudas,  and  also  Joseph  West,  the  former  Governor  of 
South  Carolina.^  Among  the  subsequent  noteworthy  ap- 
pointments were  Edwyn  Stede  in  Barbados,^  who  later  was 
Deputy  Governor  of  that  island,  and  Thomas  Miller,^  whose 
activities  caused  a  miniature  political  upheaval  in  North 
Carolina. 

As  a  rule,  one  collector  was  appointed  for  each  colony, 
with  authority,  however,  to  designate  such  deputies  as  might 
be  required.^  But  in  Virginia,  where  there  were  no  regular 
ports  of  entry,  the  agents  of  the  colony  induced  the  govern- 
ment in  1676  to  appoint  seven  collectors  —  among  whom 
were  such  prominent  colonials  as  Nicholas  Spencer,  John 
Washington,  and  Ralph  Wormley  —  to  act  in  the  four 
principal  rivers  of  the  colony  and  on  "the  Eastern  Shore." ^ 


^  In  1674,  Philip  Carteret,  the  Governor  of  East  New  Jersey,  was  also  ap- 
pointed to  be  the  Collector  there,  with  authority  to  appoint  a  deputy. 
Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1672-1675,  pp.  521,  522. 

2  Ordered  appointed  Sept.  14,  1674,  in  place  of  Robert  Bevis,  Bevin,  or 
Beven.  Ibid.  p.  580.  This  was  evidently  Robert  Bevin  who,  jomtly  with 
Stede,  acted  as  agent  of  the  Royal  African  Company  in  Barbados.    C.  C. 

1669-1674,  pp.  363,  364,  544;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  572-574- 

3  Ordered  appointed  Nov.  16, 1676.     Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  p.  373. 
*  In  the  Leeward  Islands,  a  joint-collector  was  appointed  for  Nevis  and 

St.  Kitts,  but  Antigua  and  Montserrat  each  had  its  own  collector.    Ibid. 
1672-1675,  pp.  427,  451,  452. 

^  Ibid.  1676-1679,  pp.  346,  347.  At  the  same  time,  Captain  Philip 
Lightfoot  was  appointed  Comptroller  and  Surveyor  General  of  the  colony. 
Ibid.  Nicholas  Spencer  and  John  Washington  held  the  joint-coUectorship 
on  the  Potomac,  but  in  1679,  after  the  death  of  the  latter,  Spencer  was  ap- 
pointed sole  collector.    Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  5,  f.  8.    This 


28o 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Similarly,  nine  years  later,  Maryland  was  divided  into  two 
districts  with  separate  collectors.^ 

In  addition  to  these  collectors,  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Customs  appointed  in  nearly  every  one  of  the  colonies 
an  official  called  the  Comptroller  and  Surveyor  General, 
who,  while  subordinate  to  the  Collector,  acted  as  a  check 
upon  him  and  countersigned  the  accounts  that  he  sent 
to  England.2  None  of  these  officials,  except  Nicholas  Bad- 
warrant  from  the  Treasury  to  the  Customs,  ordering  Spencer*s  appointment, 
is  printed  in  Atton  and  HoUand,  The  King's  Customs,  p.  462. 

1  In  the  beginning  of  1685,  Nehemiah  Blackiston,  the  ComptroUer  and 
Surveyor  in  Maryland,  was  appointed  Collector,  in  succession  to  Christopher 
Rousby,  who  had  been  murdered.  But  on  Sept.  24,  1685,  John  Rousby 
was  appointed  Collector  at  Patuxent  River,  and  Blackiston's  duties  were 
restricted  to  the  Wicomico  and  Pocomoke  rivers.  He  was  obUged, 
however,  to  officiate  only  at  the  Wicomico,  and  George  Layfield,  the  colony's 
Comptroller  and  Surveyor,  was  authorized  to  act  as  his  deputy  on  the 
Pocomoke,  with  power  to  appoint  deputies  to  perform  his  own  duties  as 
Comptroller  on  the  Patuxent  and  Wicomico  rivers.  Treas.  Books,  Out- 
Letters,  Customs  10,  ff.  9,  51.  See  also  C.  O.  5/739,  f.  78;  C.  C.  1685- 
1688,  pp.  6,  286.  In  1687,  John  Payne  was  appointed  to  succeed  John 
Rousby  in  the  Patuxent  River  district.  Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs 
II,  f.  36. 

2  On  April  30,  1673,  Treasurer  CHfford  wrote,  apparently  to  the  Customs, 
that  he  approved  of  their  proposals  for  executing  25  Ch.  II,  c.  7,  and  of  the 
appointment  of  collectors  in  each  of  the  plantations,  but  added :  "  That  there 
may  be  a  check  over  the  action  of  the  CoUectors  I  think  fit  a  Surveyor  should 
also  be  appointed  at  each  Plantation  to  be  allowed  a  sixth  part  of  the  salary 
proposed  for  the  Head  Collectors,"  the  remaining  five-sixths  to  go  to  the 
coUectors  for  their  pains  and  "  the  charge  of  under  officers."  Cal.  Treas. 
Books,  1672-1675,  p.  126.  For  the  surveyors  appointed,  see  ibid.  pp.  427, 
596,  866,  708 ;  ibid.  1676-1679,  pp.  288, 312,  641,  755,  1019,  1119.  For  the 
system  of  control  over  the  collectors,  see  ihid.  1676-1679,  pp.  728,  729.  In 
the  Bermudas  and  in  Montserrat,  on  account  of  their  small  trade,  no  comp- 
trollers were  appointed,  and  the  collectors  were  granted  the  entire  allowances 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  281 

cock  and  Nehemiah  Blackiston  in  Maryland  ^  and  Timothy- 
Biggs  in  North  CaroHna,^  were  at  all  prominent  in  the 
controversies,  in  which  the  collectors  became  so  frequently 
involved. 

As  this  corps  of  customs  officials  was  of  considerable  size, 
experience  showed  that  it  would  be  advisable  to  appoint  a 
superior  official  to  inspect  and  control  their  work.  In  1683, 
William  Dyre,  who  had  been  Collector  of  the  New  York 
provincial  revenue,^  was  appointed  Surveyor  General  of  the 
Customs  in  the  American  colonies.^  In  the  spring  of  1683, 
Dyre  was  in  Barbados  on  official  business  and  unearthed  some 
abuses  there.  ^    Towards  the  end  of  the  year,  he  appeared  in 

established  for  the  imperial  customs  officials  in  these  colonies.  Ibid.  1672- 
1675,  pp.  427,  499. 

^  The  warrant  for  Blackiston's  appointment  was  dated  Jan.  16,  1683. 
Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  8,  f.  182.  The  appointment  of  Badcock 
was  authorized  on  June  23, 1680.     Ibid.  5,  f.  230. 

2  The  warrant  for  Biggs's  appointment  was  dated  Sept.  28,  1678.  Cal. 
Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  p.  1119. 

*  In  1674,  Dyre  had  been  appointed  Collector  of  the  New  York  revenue, 
and  ini68i  he  was  tried  in  the  colony '  as  a  false  traitor '  for  collecting  customs 
duties  that  had  not  been,  as  was  claimed,  duly  authorized.  On  Dyre 
denying  the  competence  of  the  New  York  court,  he  was  sent  for  trial  to 
England,  where  the  charges  against  him  were  held  to  be  groundless.  C.  C. 
1681-1685,  pp.  81,  259,  304,  555 ;  Conn.  Col.  Rec.  Ill,  p.  344  n.  See  also 
Mrs.  Schuyler  Van  Rensselaer,  History  of  the  City  of  New  York  II, 
pp.  232-242.  On  Dec.  2,  1682,  Dyre  was  ordered  appointed  Collector 
of  the  Customs  in  Pennsylvania  and  the  Jerseys,  and  a  month  later  he 
secured  the  post  of  Surveyor  General.  Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs 
8,  f.  172. 

*  For  Dyre's  commission  and  instructions  of  Jan.  4,  1683,  see  C.  O. 
140/4,  f.  32 ;  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  V,  p.  530;  Conn.  Col.  Rec.  Ill,  p.  344. 

*  Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  8,  f.  239;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  58; 
Toppan,  Randolph  IV,  p  5. 


Ml 


282 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


I  (    ■< ! 


Jamaica,  where,  after  some  hesitation  on  the  part  of  the  local 
authorities,  he  was  permitted  to  exercise  the  powers  of  his 
commission.!    In  1684,  he  was  in  New  England,  where  his 
family  had  been  residing  for  several  years.^    Dyre's  career 
in  New  York  had  already  made  him  unpopular  in  Massachu- 
setts,^ and  his  commission  as  Surveyor  General  was  regarded 
with  considerable  distrust.*     WhHe  there,  he  participated  in, 
and  claimed  the  credit  for,  the  seizure  of  a  notable  pirate.^ 
In  1685,  Dyre  investigated  conditions  in  Pennsylvania  and 
New  Jersey,  and  complained  of  the  iUegal  trade  carried  on 
there.^    In  New  Jersey,  he  seized  a  ship  for  trading  without 
entering,  and  although,  so  he  alleged,  the  case  was  absolutely 
clear,  yet  the  jury  found  against  him  and  charged  him  with  a 
long  bill  of  costs,  for  refusmg  to  pay  which  he  was  arrested. 
It  was  on  the  strength  of  this  complaint  that  the  Privy  Council 
ordered  the  Attorney-General  to  institute  proceedmgs  against 

*  C.  O.  140/4,  f.  32 ;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  572. 
2  Toppan,  Randolph  IV,  p.  5. 

^  The  verses,  written  on  Randolph's  return  to  New  England  as  Collector 
in  1679,  contained  the  following  lines :  — 

"He  that  keep  a  Plantacon  Custom-house, 
One  year,  may  bee  a  man,  the  next  a  Mouse. 
y  Brother  Dyer  hath  the  Devill  played. 
Made  the  New-Yorkers  at  the  first  affraide, 
Hee  vapoured,  swagger'd,  hector'd  (whoe  but  hee?) 
But  soon  destroyed  himself  by  Villanie." 
Ibid.  Ill,  pp.  61-64. 
*Ibid.  I,  pp.  155,  235;  III,  pp.  339,  340.    In  1686,  Governor  Dongan 
of  New  York  stated  that,  according  to  report,  Dyre  was  "the  worst  of  men." 
Goodrick,  Randolph  VI,  p.  166  n. 
^  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  684-686. 
•  House  of  Lords  MSS.  II  (1695-1697),  p.  465. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  283 

the  Jersey  charter.^  In  1686,  we  find  Dyre  using  his  author- 
ity to  appoint  customs  officials  in  the  Bermudas  and  in 
Connecticut,  and  complaining  of  the  illegal  importation  of 
European  goods  in  the  latter  colony.  ^    In  November  of 

1685,  Patrick  Mein  was  appointed  to  succeed  Dyre  as  Sur- 
veyor General  and  assumed  his  duties  in  1686.^  Towards  the 
middle  of  the  year,  he  was  in  New  York  and  New  Jersey 
investigating  conditions  there.  A  few  months  later,  he  ap- 
peared in  Maryland,  where  the  customs  service  was  in  an  un- 
satisfactory state,  and  reported  upon  the  conditions  in  that 
colony.  He  likewise  visited  Virginia,  where  at  this  time  also 
there  was  considerable  trouble  about  the  administration  of 
the  laws.  While  in  the  "  Old  Dominion,"  he  issued  detailed 
instructions  to  the  customs  officials  established  there."*  After 
having  completed  his  survey  of  the  continental  colonies  to 
the  satisfaction  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs,  Mein 
was  ordered  to  proceed  to  the  West  Indies,  with  instructions 

1  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  61,  106 ;  House  of  Lords  MSS.  II  (1695-1697), 
p.  465 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  II,  p.  89. 

2  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  295 ;  Conn.  Col.  Rec.  Ill,  p.  344. 

'  On  Jan.  15,  1685,  the  Customs  Board  was  authorized  to  appoint 
William  Carler  to  succeed  Dyre,  but  apparently  no  action  was  taken,  and  on 
Nov.  17,  1685,  Mein's  appointment  in  succession  to  Dyre  was  authorized 
by  the  Treasury.     Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  9,  f .  90 ;   10,  f .  73. 

*  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  209,  253,  277,  280,  305 ;  House  of  Lords  MSS.  II 
(1695-1697),  p.  465;  C.  0.  5/739,  ff.  72-75;  ibid.  1/62,  20 xi;  Goodrick, 
Randolph  VI,  p.   199.     The  instructions  issued  by  Mein  on  Dec.   24, 

1686,  to  the  Virginia  collectors  carefully  described  their  duties  under  the  five 
fundamental  statutes  of  the  Restoration  Parliament,  and  ordered  them  to 
correspond  with  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  in  England  and  to  obey 
their  instructions.  He  further  enjoined  upon  them  not  to  engage  in  trade, 
either  directly  or  indirectly.    C.  O.  1/59,  34. 


fl 


284 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


to  inspect  the  management  of  the  1673  plantation  duties  and 
the  four  and  a  half  per  cent  revenue,  and  also  the  execution 
of  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation,  and  especially  to  pre- 
vent ships  from  leaving  these  islands  unless  they  had  given 
satisfactory  enumerated  bonds.^ 

Thus  there  was  estabUshed  in  the  colonies  a  comprehensive 
system  of  customs  ofl&cials,  who  not  only  were  absolutely 
independent  of  the  authorities  in  the  charter  and  proprietary 
colonies,  but  also  were  in  a  great  measure  free  from  control 
by  the  royal  governors,  since  they  were  directly  responsible 
to  the  higher  authority  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs. 
Moreover,  apart  from  the  fees  occasionally  allowed  them  for 
entering  and  clearing  vessels,  these  officials  were  absolutely 
independent  of  the  colonial  governments,  because  their  sala- 
ries were  derived  from  the  Exchequer  or  from  funds  under 
the  exclusive  control  of  the  English  Treasury.  When  these 
collectors  and  comptrollers  were  first  appointed  in  1673, 
it  was  arranged  that  they  should  receive  as  compensa- 
tion a  fixed  portion,  varying  in  the  different  colonies,  of 
the  1673  duties  collected  by  them.^  As  this  revenue  was 
very  small  and  the  shares  thereof  allotted  to  the  collec- 
tors were  at  the  outset  not  large,  they  had  in  most  in- 
stances to  be  increased,  so  that  ultimately  considerably 
over  one-half  of  the  income  from  this  source  went  to  those 

1  Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  11,  f.  177. 

2  At  the  beginning,  it  was  determined  to  allow  one-eighth  in  Virginia  and 
Maryland,  one-fifth  in  Barbados,  one-third  in  Jamaica,  Nevis,  and  St. 
Kitts,  and  one-half  in  Montserrat,  Antigua,  and  the  Bermudas.  Of  these 
amounts,  the  collector  was  to  receive  two-thirds  and  the  comptroller  and  sur- 
veyor one-third.    Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  28,089,  ff.  30-32. 


IH 


CENTRAL  AND   LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  285 

collecting  it.^  Thus,  already  in  1675,  the  Virginia  and 
Maryland  collectors  were  authorized  to  retain  one-half 
and  the  comptrollers  one-quarter  of  the  gross  amount 
of  these  duties  collected  there.^  This  arrangement  could 
not,  however,  be  applied  to  New  England,  because  only 
insignificant  quantities  of  the  enumerated  goods  were  ex- 
ported thence  to  the  other  colonies,  and,  besides,  it  was 
doubtful  if  the  law  could  be  adequately  enforced  there. 
Accordingly,  when  in  1678  Randolph  was  appointed  Collector 
of  New  England,  Treasurer  Danby  ordered  his  salary  of 
£100  to  be  inserted  in  the  English  customs  establishment 
until  further  orders,  which,  he  wrote:  "I  intend  to  give 
when  a  revenue  shall  arise  in  that  country  out  of  which  it 
may  be  paid.''^  Needless  to  say,  such  orders  were  never 
issued.    In  addition,  the  Surveyor  General  was  paid  by  the 


1  Already  on  Dec.  12,  1673,  it  was  ordered  that  the  former  allowance 
of  one-eighth  in  Virginia  and  Maryland  should  be  increased  to  one-half,  of 
which  the  collectors  were  entitled  to  two-thirds  and  the  surveyors  to  one- 
third.  The  same  arrangement  was  made  in  1674  for  New  York  and  North 
Carolina.  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1672-1675,  pp.  437, 456,  498,  522.  In  1677, 
the  proportion  allowed  in  Jamaica  was  raised  to  one-half  and,  in  1679,  that 
in  Barbados  to  one-fourth.  Ibid.  1676-1679,  p.  641 ;  Treas.  Books,  Out- 
Letters,  Customs  5,  ff.  12-18. 

2  This  order  was  issued  by  Danby  on  the  strength  of  a  report  of  the  Com- 
missioners of  the  Customs  to  the  effect  that,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Digges 
formerly  had  received  £250  yearly  and  Calvert  £200,  this  work  was  now 
inadequately  compensated  and,  as  the  object  of  these  duties  was  "to  turn  the 
course  of  a  trade  rather  than  to  raise  any  considerable  revenue  to  His  Majesty," 
the  proportions  allowed  to  the  customs  officials  in  these  colonies  should  be 
increased  to  one-half  and  one-quarter  of  the  amount  collected.  Cal.  Treas. 
Books,  1672-1675,  pp.  705. 

^  Ibid.  1676-1679,  p.  1 142. 


*      llZiJ 


286 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


W. 


Exchequer,  Dyre  and  Mein  each  receiving  twenty  shillings 
a  day  for  their  services.^ 

When,  in  1684,  the  system  of  farming  the  four  and  a  half  per 
cent  export  duties  in  Barbados  and  the  Leeward  Islands  was 
discarded,  the  Treasury  was  obliged  to  create  an  elaborate 
staff  of  officials  to  take  charge  of  this  revenue.     The  allow- 
ances formerly  granted  to  the  coUectors  and  comptroUers 
were  discontinued,  and  the  collection  of  the  1673  duties,  as 
well  as  the  enforcement  of  laws  of  trade  and  navigation,  was 
entrusted  to  these  new  officials.    In  Barbados,  Edwyn  Stede 
(the  former  CoUector  of  the  Customs)  and  Stephen  Gascoigne 
were  appointed  Chief  Commissioners  of  this  four  and  a  half 
per  cent  revenue  with  salaries  of  £200  apiece.    Under  them 
were  a  score  of  minor  officials  —  several  collectors,  a  comp- 
troUer,  as  weU  as  clerks,  searchers,  waiters,  watermen  —  each 
with  a  fixed  salary.    The  aggregate  cost  of  this  entire  staff, 
including  the  two  chiefs,  was  £1455,  which  was  paid  out  of 
the  four  and  a  half  per  cent  duties.^    In  the  Leeward  Islands, 

»  Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  8,  f.  239;  9,  f.  90;  10,  f.  73. 
2  This  amount  was  reckoned  equivalent  to  2328  hundredweight  of  mus- 
covado sugar,  figured  at  125.  6d.    Separate  accounts  were  ordered  kept  of 
this  revenue  and  that  arising  from  the  plantation  duties  of  1673.    The 
accounts  of  the  4^  per  cent  revenue  were  ordered  to  be  sent  regularly  to  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Customs  and  to  WiUiam  Blathwayt,  the  Auditor- 
General.     Such  goods  as  were  received  in  payment  of  these  duties  were  to  be 
shipped  to  England,  except  rum,  Ume-juice  and  molasses,  which  would  "seU 
to  the  least  advantage  in  England."    Hence,  all  the  salaries  of  these  officials 
were  ordered  to  be  paid  "out  of  the  Receipt  of  these  Commodities,  either  by 
converting  them  into  Muscovado  Sugar,  money  or  otherwise,  as  is  most 
convenient, "  and,  in  case  these  receipts  were  not  sufficient  for  the  entire 
salary  hst,  the  deficiency  was  to  be  made  good  "out  of  other  Vents  of  Goods." 
These  elaborate  instructions  were  issued  on  Sept.  2,  1684.    Treas.  Books, 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY   287 

where  the  revenue  was  comparatively  insignificant,  a  much 
less  elaborate  staff  was  required.  As  head  commissioners 
or  collectors  were  appointed  Henry  Carpenter  and  Richard 
Nagle,  with  salaries  of  £100  apiece.  Their  station  was  Nevis, 
and  for  each  of  the  other  islands  —  St.  Kitts,  Antigua,  and 
Montserrat  —  separate  coUectors  were  appointed.  Subordi- 
nate to  them  were  a  number  of  searchers  and  waiters,  and  the 
total  charge  of  the  entire  service  was  roughly  £650  yearly.^ 
The  establishment  of  this  colonial  customs  service  was 
not  effected  without  considerable  friction.  The  charter  and 
proprietary  colonies  naturally  looked  askance  at  these  offi- 
cials, who  were  the  sole  direct  representatives  of  the  impe- 
rial authority  within  their  jurisdictions.  Moreover,  in  the 
crown  colonies  also,  difficulties  arose  from  the  extensive  au- 
thority conferred  on  the  collectors  of  the  customs.  By  the 
statutes,  the  governor  was  the  colonial  official  primarily 
responsible  for  the  execution  of  the  laws  of   trade   and 

Out-Letters,  Customs  9,  fif.  43-48.  On  Oct.  4,  1684,  a  more  careful 
method  of  auditing  the  accounts  was  prescribed  and  Blathwayt's  deputy 
in  the  colony  was  authorized  to  inspect  all  the  books  and  accounts  of  these 
officials.  Ibid.  f.  55.  During  the  subsequent  five  years,  various  changes 
were  made  in  this  staff.  lUd.  ff.  57,  72 ;  10,  ff.  21,  28 ;  11,  ff.  56,  85,  95, 152. 
The  only  noteworthy  change  was  that,  in  1687,  Edward  Cranfield,  who  had 
unsuccessfully  tried  to  govern  New  Hampshire,  was  upon  his  own  petition 
appointed  one  of  the  Commissioners,  in  succession  to  Gascoigne,  "supposed 
to  be  cast  away  in  his  passage  hither."  He  was  also  at  the  same  time  ap- 
pointed Collector  of  the  Customs.    Ibid.  11,  f.  6. 

^  Ibid.  9,  f.  54.  During  the  following  five  years,  several  changes  were 
made  in  this  staff.  IbU,  f.  63 ;  10,  ff.  27, 132, 143 ;  n,  f.  95-  In  1685,  the 
salaries  of  Carpenter  and  Nagle  were  raised  to  £150,  and,  in  1686,  Thomas 
Belchamber  was  appointed  to  succeed  Nagle,  lately  deceased.  Ibid.  10,  ff. 
ZZ,  143- 


,f 


<r 


m 


2SS 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


•■I 


navigation,  and,  according  to  a  strictly  literal  interpreta- 
tion of   the  law,  the  work  of   the  collectors  should  have 
been  confined  solely  to  matters  connected  with  the  1673 
duties.    But,  in  addition  to  this,  the  collectors  were  from 
the  very  outset  instructed  also  to  see  in  general  to  the 
enforcement  of  the  entire  commercial  system.     They  were 
ordered  not  only  to  collect  the  plantation  duties,  but  to 
secure  the  execution  of  all  the  other  trade  laws  —  to  see 
that  ships  arriving  from  England  had  given  bonds  there  and 
that  in  other  cases  proper  bonds  were  given  in  the  colonies, 
to  seize  all  vessels  violating  the  Staple  Act  of  1663,  and  not  to 
allow  any  "to  unlade  before  handing  in  a  report  and  mani- 
fest." 1     It  was  but  natural  that,  in  trying  to  exercise  these 
broad  powers,  the  collectors  should  meet  with  some  opposi- 
tion from  the  colonial  governors  and  their  subordinate  offi- 
cials, to  whom  hitherto  this  work  had  been  wholly  entrusted. 
In  Virginia,  this  opposition  culminated  in  a  serious  quarrel 
between  Governor  Berkeley  and  Giles  Bland,  who  was  ap- 
pointed Collector  of  the  Customs  in  1675.2    He  was  the  son 
of  a  London  merchant  of  extensive  and  varied  activities, 
John  Bland,  who  is  mainly  remembered  on  account  of  an 
incisive  criticism  of  the  purely  economic  features  of  the 
newly  created  colonial  system.    Towards  the  end  of  the 
sixties,  Giles  Bland  was  in  Tangier,  of  which  his  active  father 
was  the  Mayor,^  and,  a  few  years  thereafter,  he  came  to 


|ii 


l< 


»  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1672-1675,  pp.  451,  452 ;   Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS. 
28,089,  ff.  30-34. 

2  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1672-1675,  p.  667. 

3  E.  M.  G.  Routh,  Tangier,  pp.  120-123. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  289 

Virginia  to  take  charge  of  his  father's  extensive  landed 
estates  there.^     In  1674,  as  a  result  of  a  personal  quarrel 
with  the  colony's  Secretary,  Thomas  Ludwell,  during  which 
he  was  held  to  have  affronted  the  "Grand  Assembly''  and  in- 
sulted the  Council,  Bland  was  fined  £500  by  the  Virginia  au- 
thorities.   Thus,  already  before  his  appointment  as  Collector 
of  the  Customs,  he  was  in  bad  odor  with  the  oligarchy  govern- 
ing the  colony,  and  soon  thereafter  he  became  involved  in 
an  acrimonious  dispute  with  the  autocratic  Governor,  Sir 
William  Berkeley,  about  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  of  trade.^ 
In  the  main,  the  trouble  arose  from  the  fact  that  Berkeley  and 
the  local  officials  wished  to  restrict  Bland's  authority  to  the 
collection  of  the  plantation  duties  of  1673,  and  hampered  him 
when  he  tried  to  carry  out  his  broad  instructions  to  supervise 
the  execution  of  the  entire  body  of  the  laws  of  trade.     In  the 
course  of  a  long  letter  ^  on  the  obstructions  encountered  by 
him.  Bland  pointed  out  to  Governor  Berkeley  how.  impossi- 
ble it  was  for  him  to  enforce  the  laws,  as  the  trading  vessels 
refused  to  enter  and  clear  with  him,  but  continued  as  here- 
tofore to  do  so  solely  with  the  collectors  of  the  provincial 
revenue.     In  ignoring  him.  Bland  continued,  these  vessels 
"sHght  his  Ma*f  Authority  &  Comands,"  and  are  encouraged 
to  do  so  by  the  local  officials.    As  a  result,  he  further  claimed, 
considerable  illegal  trade  was  carried  on,  which  he  had  no 
means  of  checking.    In  consequence  of  these  so-called  scan- 

1  Va.  Mag.  XX,  p.  238. 

2  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  496;  Va.  Mag.  XX,  pp.  238,  239; 
C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  609,  624;  ibid.  1675-1676,  pp.  231,  232,  379. 

«  September  16,  1675.    Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  fif.  511  et  seq. 

V 


(  I 


<ii 


1(1 


If 


290 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


dalous  charges,  the  Virginia  authorities  suspended  Bland  from 
his  post  until  the  King's  pleasure  should  be  made  known.^ 
Shortly  thereafter  began  the  disturbances  culminating  in 
Bacon's  rebellion,  in  which  Bland  took  a  prominent  part, 
naturally  on  the  side  of  the  insurgents.  It  was  presumably 
for  this  reason,  rather  than  on  the  merits  of  his  special  con- 
troversy with  Berkeley,  that  the  Commissioners  of  the  Cus- 
toms were  ordered  on  August  21, 1676,  to  present  a  fit  person 
to  succeed  Bland,  "whom  his  Majesty  has  commanded  to 
be  removed  from  that  employment."  ^  A  few  months  later. 
Bland  fell  victim  to  Governor  Berkeley's  vindictive  spirit 
and  was  hanged  for  his  participation  in  the  rebellion. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  collectors  of  the  customs  could  not 
secure  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  of  trade  unless  vessels 
were  obliged  to  enter  and  clear  with  them.  Bland  was  fully 
justified  in  making  this  contention.^    But  it  is  equally  plain 

» Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  515;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  298,  299; 
Va.  Mag.  XX.  p.  242. 

2  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  p.  308.  Bland's  letter  of  April  28,  1676, 
to  Williamson,  embodying  his  own  specific  grievances  and  those  of  the 
party  opposed  to  Berkeley,  was  endorsed  as  having  been  received  in  June. 
C.  O.  1/36,  54;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  385,  386.  On  July  28,  1676,  the 
Virginia  agents  were  called  to  account,  because  Bland  had  been  dismissed 
without  first  making  application  to  the  Treasury.  In  reply,  they  asserted 
that  he  had  been  restored  to  his  ofl&ce.  On  this  occ^ion,  these  agents 
claimed  that  Bland's  powers  extended  only  to  collecting  the  1673  duties 
and  'that  the  Governor  is  imder  a  penalty  of  1000  1.  for  entering  and  clear- 
ing of  all  ships  that  come  for  England  or  go  elsewhere.'  Cal.  Treas.  Books, 
1676-1679,  p.  67. 

3  Bland  wrote  to  Berkeley:  "As  touching  ships  coming  from  England 
vf^]^  yo^  Hon-  will  not  Admitt  y*  I  should  take  any  cognizance  of,"  how 
can  I  find  out  if  they  really  came  from  England  if  they  do  not  enter  with 
me.    Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  513. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  291 

that,  imless  this  work  were  likewise  performed  by  the  sub- 
ordinate officers  of  the  governor,  he  could  not  perform  his 
statutory  duties  of  enforcing  the  colonial  system.^  Conse- 
quently it  gradually  became  the  estabhshed  custom  for  both 
the  collectors  and  the  naval  officers  to  examine  the  ships' 
papers  at  arrival  and  departure.  Formal  instructions  to  this 
general  effect  were  in  1683  sent  from  England  to  the  royal 
governors.^  The  work  of  these  two  sets  of  officials  was 
thus  largely  the  same,^  and  one  acted  as  a  check  on  the  other. 
This  dual  system/  which  was  largely  unique,  was  foimd  to 
be  fairly  effective,  and  hence  was  retained  by  the  continental 
colonies  when  they  secured  their  independence  from  Great 
Britain,  and  is  still  a  characteristic  feature  of  the  customs 
administration  of  the  United  States. 

The  Crown  and  the  Privy  Council  with  its  attendant 
committees  and  boards  were  represented  in  the  colonies  by 
the  governors  and  the  naval  officers;  the  Treasury  agents 

*  In  most  of  the  colonies,  the  local  revenue  was  in  part  raised  by  customs 
duties,  and  hence  ships  had  also  to  enter  and  clear  with  the  purely  provin- 
cial revenue  oflScials.  Thus  three  sets  of  officials  were  directly  concerned 
in  the  same  work.  In  practice,  however,  the  system  was  not  so  cumbersome, 
as  in  some  of  the  colonies  the  same  man  held  two  offices. 

2  C.  O.  s/904,  ff.  330-332;  ibid.  1/52,  60;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  477, 
478,  549,  564,  565.    See  also  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  289,  291. 

'  The  collectors  also  saw  to  the  payment  of  the  1673  plantation  duties, 
in  which  the  naval  officers  had  no  concern.  Similarly,  it  was  the  special 
duty  of  the  naval  officers  to  take  bonds  from  such  vessels  shipping  the 
enumerated  commodities  as  had  not  already  given  security  in  England. 

*  The  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  wanted  the  collectors  appointed 
by  them  to  be  also  the  naval  officers,  but,  as  they  reported  in  1694/5, 
although  they  had  on  many  occasions  recommended  this  step,  they  had 
"very  rarely  prevailed  therein."    Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  22,617,  ff- 141, 142. 


292 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


m 


were  the  surveyors  general  and  the  collectors  of  the  customs. 
Similarly,  the  third  of  the  English  administrative  depart- 
ments directly  concerned  in  the  execution  of  the  laws  of 
trade,  the  Admiralty,  likewise  had  its  personal  representa- 
tives in  America.  These  agents  of  the  Admiralty  were  of 
two  distinct  classes :  the  Vice-Admirals  and  the  officials  of 
the  admiralty  courts,  which  had  cognizance  of  specific  vio- 
lations of  the  commercial  system;  the  captains  and  other 
officers  of  the  royal  navy,  who  were  authorized  under  the 
Navigation  Act  to  seize  vessels  violating  certain  of  its  pro- 
visions. 

The  Navigation  Act  of  1660  not  only  authorized,  but 
"strictly  required,"  all  officers  of  the  Royal  Navy  to  seize 
as  prizes  any  foreign  ships  trading  to  the  colonies  and  to 
deliver  'them  to  the  Court  of  Admiralty  for  trial.^  In  case 
of  condemnation,  one-half  of  the  proceeds  of  such  seizures 
was  to  be  allotted  to  the  officers  of  the  Navy  concerned 
therein,  and  the  balance  to  the  Crown.  But  if  the  offending 
vessel  were  seized  in  the  colony  by  civil  officials,  then  the 
trial  was  to  be  held  "in  any  court  of  record,"  while,  on 
condemnation,  the  proceeds  were  to  be  equally  divided 
between  the  Crown,  the  Governor,  and  the  informer  or 

^  The  statute  is  not  quite  clear,  and  might  have  been  interpreted  to 
mean  that  the  trial  should  take  place  in  the  English  High  Court  of  Ad- 
miralty. This  doubt  was  voiced  by  the  Council  of  Barbados, which  in  1661 
wrote  that  they  would  'prosecute  the  late  Act  of  Navigation,  but  begged 
that  the  King's  ships  might  not  carry  off  ships  lying  in  their  ports  to  the 
Admiralty  Court  in  England,  but  should  have  them  tried  before  the  courts 
of  record  here.'  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  84.  Whatever  the  intent  of  the 
legislature  was,  the  English  government  interpreted  this  clause  to  mean  the 
colonial  admiralty  courts. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  293 

seizer.^  Similarly,  the  penalties  for  violations  of  the emunera- 
tion  clauses  were  made  recoverable  in  the  courts  of  record.^ 
It  was  a  matter  of  continuous  discussion,  which  apparently 
could  never  be  absolutely  settled,  whether  the  admiralty  and 
vice-admiralty  courts  were  courts  of  record.  The  weight  of 
legal  opinion  and  also  that  of  current  practice  were,  however, 
against  this  contention,  and  in  general  it  was  assumed  that 
by  this  term  was  meant  solely  the  common  law  courts.^  Less 
ambiguous  than  the  Act  of  1660  was  the  Staple  Act  of  1663, 
which  provided  that  seizures  for  violations  thereof  could  be 
condemned  in  any  of  the  colonial  courts  or  in  any  court  of 
record  in  England.*  Thus  these  two  fundamental  statutes 
gave  an  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  certain  seizures  to  the 
admiralty  courts,  while  in  other  cases  such  power  was  con- 
ferred on  the  courts  of  record,  and  again  in  a  third  class 
these  two  kinds  of  courts  were  given  concurrent  authority. 

1  12  Ch.  II,  c.  18,  §  i. 

2  Ibid.  §  xviii. 

3  Towards  the  end  of  1688,  a  Dutch  ship  suspected  of  illegal  trading 
was  seized  by  the  civil  authorities  in  Jamaica.  Evidence  was  offered  that 
the  vessel  belonged  to  Dutch  owners,  that  nearly  all  the  seamen  were 
Dutch,  "and  that  they  had  both  bought  and  sold  here  contrary  to  the 
Acts  of  Navigation."  Before  proceeding  with  the  case,  "Mr.  Magragh, 
the  King's  Counsell  moved  the  Board  (the  Jamaica  Council)  for  directions 
how  to  proceed  against  the  Dutch  Shipp  lately  Seized  for  breach  of  the 
Acts  of  Navigation,"  stating  that  he  believed  there  was  "Evidence  suffi- 
cient to  prove  Shee  has  Traded  contrary  to  Law  but  that  they  cannot  try 
her  in  the  Admiralty  by  reason  the  Statute  of  the  12^?  of  King  Charles, 
the  Second  directs  the  Tryall  to  be  in  a  Court  of  Record."  He  prayed  for 
a  special  commission  for  the  speedy  trial  of  this  seizure,  which  was  granted, 
and  shortly  afterwards  it  was  condemned.  C.  O.  140/4,  ff.  256-257 ;  C.  C. 
1685-1688,  p.  621. 

*  15  Ch.  II,  c.  7.    See  also  22  &  23  Ch.  II,  c.  26,  §§  x,  xi. 


ii 


I 


I' 


f 


I 

■ 


294 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


*'i 


1 

1 


During  the  Interregnum,  admiralty  courts  had  been  erected 
in  some  of  the  West  Indian  colonies  and  had  been  used  for 
condemning   both  prizes   of  war  and  also  foreign  ships 
found  trading  to  the  EngUsh  colonies.    The  prolongation  of 
the  Spanish  War  after  1660  and  the  provisions  of  the  Naviga- 
tion Act  of  that  year  made  it  necessary  to  continue  this 
jurisdiction  in  America.    In   1661,   Edward  Doyley,   the 
Governor  of  Jamaica,  was  instructed  to  settle  'Judicatories 
for  civil  affairs  and  admiralty,' » and  in  1662  the  Duke  of 
York's  powers  as  Lord  High  Admiral  were  extended  to 
England's  foreign  possessions  in  Africa  and  America."    Ac- 
cordingly, when  in  this  year  Lord  Windsor  was  appointed 
Governor  of  Jamaica,  he  was  instructed  by  the  Crown  to 
cause  to  be  held  courts  of  admiralty  by  such  judges  as 
should  be  commissioned  for  that  purpose  by  the  Duke  of 
York.'    But  in  the  foUowing  year,  when  Lord  Willoughby 
was  appointed  Governor  of  the  Caribbee  Islands,  the  Crown 
gave  him  authority  'as  High  Admiral  to  constitute  courts 
for  marine  causes,'  together  with  'powers  of  Vice-Admiral 
to  execute  martial  law  and  expel  by  force  all  intruders.'  * 
This  commission  unquestionably  infringed  upon  the  author- 
ity previously  granted  to  the  Duke  of  York  as  Lord  High 
Admiral  of  the  colonies,  and  led  to  some  difficulties. 

'  C.  C.  i66i-i668,  no.  22. 

'  Ibid.  no.  245. 

'  Ibid.  no.  259 ;  C.  O.  1/16,  nos.  35,  36. 

wn^"  ^i  '^^'~'^^f'  °°-  478-  In  the  preceding  year,  1662,  when  Lord 
WUloughby  received  a  grant  of  the  Caribbee  Islands,  'the  office  of  High 
Admiral  o^^id  islands,  with  the  jurisdictions,  liberties,  and  profits  thereto 
belonging,    had  been  specificaUy  excepted.    Ibid.  no.  3S7. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  295 

Shortly  after  his  arrival  in  Barbados,  WiUoughby  wrote  to 
the  Secretary  of  State,  Sir  Heniy  Bennet,  that  he  had  heard 
that  the  Duke  of  York  had  appointed  Colonel  Barwicke 
his  Vice-Admiral,  which  he  could  only  conceive  to  be  some 
mistake,  as  his  own  commission  from  the  King  created  him 
Vice-Admiral  in  those  seas  with  power  to  hold  courts  of 
admiralty.    He  then  added  that  he  would  desist  from  acting 
under  his  commission  untU  receipt  of  further  orders,  and 
that  he  had  written  to  the  Duke  of  York,  praying  for  a  com- 
mission from  him  and  craving  pardon  for  his  neglect  in  not 
having  made  this  request  before.'    At  the  same  time,  Lord 
Willoughby  also  wrote  to  Clarendon,  entreating  his  favor 
with  the  Duke  of  York  on  account  of  the  gross  mistake  that 
he  had  made  in  not  taking  a  commission  as  Vice-Admiral 
from  him  as  weU  as  from  the  King,  and  exculpating  himself 
on  the  ground  that  he  did  not  know  of  the  enlargement  of 
the  Duke  of  York's  powers  until  he  had  arrived  in  Barbados." 
Accordingly,  in  future,  the  authority  of  the  Duke  of  York 
was  specilicaUy  recognized  in  the  commissions  issued  by  the 
Crown  to  the  royal  governors.    Therein  they  were  appointed 
Vice-Admirals  with  power  to  estabUsh  admiralty  courts,  but 
this  authority  was  to  be  exercised  according  to  such  com- 
missions, directions,  and  instructions  as  they  should  receive 
from  the  Duke  of  York.'    He  issued  separate  commissions 
appointing  the  colonial  governors  his  Vice-Admirals.* 

'  Ibid.  no.  617.  2  Bodleian,  Clarendon  MSS.  81,  ff.  5,  6. 

'  See  the  instructions  and  commissions  of  Sir  Thomas  Modyford  in 
1664  and  of  Sir  Thomas  Lynch  in  1671.  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  656,  664- 
C.  O.  1/18,  20;  C.  O.  138/1,  ff.  88-9S. 

*  See,  e.g.,  the  Duke  of  York's  commission  of  Jan.  26,  1667,  constituting 


i 


296 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


\ 


Except  naturaUy  in  the  case  of  New  York,i  ^^jch  was  the 

Lord  High  Admirars  proprietary  dominion,  this  authority 

was  granted  only  to  the  royal  governors,  and  not  to  the 

officials  of  the  proprietary  and  charter  colonies.    Nor  was  any 

attempt  made  at  this  time  to  extend  the  EngHsh  admiralty 

jurisdiction  over  these  semi-mdependent  communities  and  to 

give  its  agents  authority  within  them.^    Whenever  courts 

of  this  nature  were  erected  within  these  colonies,  the  power 

to  do  so  was  based  upon  the  vague  provisions  of  the  original 

colonial  charters,  which  in  some  cases  might  be  construed 

as  conferring  upon  the  patentees  jurisdiction  in  admiralty 

matters.    In    Maryland,    his  "Lo^^^  AdmiraU^'    exercised 

such  authority  as  was  vested  in  Lord  Baltimore  by  virtue 

of  the  charter  of  1632.2    In  Massachusetts,  the  General 

Court  ordered  in  1674  that  all  admiralty  cases  should  be 

determined  by  the  Court  of  Assistants  without  a  jury, 

unless  the  court  should  see  cause  to  the  contrary.^    The 

WiUiam,  Lord  WiUoughby,  Vice-Admiral  of  the  Caribbee  Islands.    C.  C. 

1661-1668,  no.  1389. 

iWhen  Governor  of  New  York,  Andros  had  a  commission  as  Vice- 
Admiral,  but  the  Duke  of  York  reserved  the  right  to  appoint  the  judge, 
registrar,  and  marshal  of  the  admiralty  court.  In  1678,  Andros  was  given 
authority  to  appoint  these  three  officials.  In  the  same  year,  Andros  stated 
that  the  admiralty  jurisdiction  had  been  exercised  by  special  commission  or  by 
"the  Court  of  Major  and  Aldermen  at  New-Yorke."  C.  O.  i55/i»  ff-  i8-33» 
§ii;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  260-262,  268;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  237,  238. 

2  In  1680,  Randolph  urged  the  necessity  of  issuing  an  admiralty  com- 
misson  covering  Massachusetts,  on  account  of  the  number  of  prizes  brought 
there.    C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  487-490;  Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  56-61. 

3  Calvert  Papers  I,  pp.  268,  269,  279,  287. 

*  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  IV,  Part  II,  p.  575-  In  1680,  Governor  Bradstreet 
stated  that  this  court  had  jurisdiction  in  admiralty  cases  "without  a  Jury 
according  to  the  Sea  Laws."    C.  O.  1/44,  60 i. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  297 

exercise  of  this  jurisdiction,  Randolph  claimed,  was  one  of 
the  many  instances  in  which  Massachusetts  had  exceeded 
the  authority  granted  by  the  charter.^  In  addition,  some 
of  the  other  colonies  of  this  group  also  occasionaUy  used 
the  admiralty  jurisdiction.^ 

Thus  the  EngUsh  Admiralty  confined  its  authority  to  the 
crown  colonies.  Admiralty  courts  were  at  this  time  erected 
in  all  of  these  governments,  except  Virginia.  In  answer  to 
the  query  of  the  English  authorities  about  the  existence  of 
such  a  court  there.  Governor  Berkeley  stated  in  1671 :  "In 
Twenty  Eight  yeares  There  has  been  neuer  one  prize 
brought  into  theis  Country.    Soe  that  there  is  noe  neede  of 

1  Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  229,  230,  232-235;   C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp. 

''°'^r;Jy 'to'the  EngHsh  govermnent's  query  on  this  point.  Governor 
PelegSanfordof  Rhode  Island  stated  in  x68o:  "Wee  have  made  provision 
to  act  accordinge  to  the  Lawes  of  England  as  neare  as  ^^e  consUtuU^^^^^^ 
our  place  will  bear,  havinge  but  Utde  occasion  thereofe.       C.  0. 1/44,  581, 
C   C   X677-1680,  pp.  523,  524.    On  the  same  occasion,  Governor  Leete  o 
Connecticut  stat  d  that  they  had  little  traffic  abroad  and  hence  had  "smaU 
occaXn"  for  an  admiralty  court  and  so  had  none,  but  that  such  cases 
were  left  to  the  Court  of  Assistants.    Conn.  Col.  Rec.  Ill,  pp.  294,  300, 
I      C  C  X677-1680,  pp.  576-578.    At  this  time  also,  Governor  Wms  ow 
of  New   Plyl  uth  wrote:   "Wee  doe  not  find  Admiralty  .unsdiction 
granted  us," nor  have  we  presumed  to  erect  a  court  of  admiralty,  though 
we  have  sometimes  occasion  for  it  on  -cunt  of  the  prizes  b^^^^^^^^^ 
our  harbors.    In  these  cases,  he  said,  they  took  bonds  to  ^nn^jbe  ^^^^^^^ 
to  a  speedy  trial  in  some  court  of  admiralty  estabhshed  by  the  King  m 
En  la^or  elsewhere.     CO.  x/44,  55i;    C.  C.  X677-1680,  pp.  5-523 
In  the  Bermudas,  under  the   Company's  rule,   there  was  no   court  o 
admiralty,  but  the  Governor  and  CouncU  determined  maritime  cau.s 
when  the  occasion  presented  itself.     Lefroy  II,  pp.  33^,  429,  433 ,  C  ^^ 
X677-1680,  pp.  393,  394.    An  Admiralty  Court  was  also  erected  m  South 
CaroUna.    C.  C.  X685-1688,  pp.  451,  452- 


298 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


#1 

* 


a  pticular  Court  for  that  conceme."  *  Prior  to  1688,  there 
was  no  special  admiralty  court  in  this  colony,  and  cases 
involving  breaches  of  the  laws  of  trade  were  tried  by  the 
General  Court  and  also  by  the  county  courts.^  Until 
toward  the  end  of  the  Restoration  period,  up  to  the  time 
when  the  charters  of  the  New  England  colonies  were  revoked, 
the  English  admiralty  jurisdiction  was  practically  exclu- 
sively exercised  in  the  West  Indian  colonies.  It  was  upon 
the  experience  and  precedents  of  the  past  twenty  years  in 
those  colonies  that  admiralty  courts  were  then  erected  in 
New  England.^  When  the  government  of  New  Hampshire 
was  taken  over  by  the  Crown,  its  Governor,  Edward  Cran- 
field,  was  appointed  Vice-Admiral  and  an  Admiralty  Court 
was  estabhshed.*  The  same  authority  was  vested  m  the 
representatives  of  the  Crown  in  Massachusetts  and,  on 
July  5,  1686,  was  held  the  first  session  of  the  royal  Admi- 
ralty Court  there.^ 
Shortly  after  the  Restoration,  admiralty  courts  were  es- 

*  C.  O.  1/26,  77  i. 

2  Although  the  Governor  of  Virginia,  Lord  Howard  of  Effingham,  had  a 
commission  as  Vice- Admiral,  the  seizures  for  illegal  trading  made  in  1686 
by  the  officers  of  the  navy  were  tried  with  juries  by  the  General  Court 
or  by  the  county  courts.  C.  O.  1/62,  20 ii,  vi,  viii.  See  also  P.  A.  Bruce, 
Institutional  History  of  Virginia  I,  pp.  697-700. 

3  On  the  New  York  Admiralty  Court  at  this  time,  see  C.  C.  1685-1688, 
pp.  228,  261,  306,  461,  467 ;  Toppan,  Randolph  IV,  pp.  96-98,  125,  126. 

^  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  200,  307,  368,  369,  698. 

^  Letter-Book  of  Samuel  Sewall  in  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.  6th  Series  I, 
p.  34.  After  the  revocation  of  the  Bermuda  charter,  such  a  court  was  also 
established  there.  In  1687,  Governor  Robinson  wrote  to  Blathwayt  that 
he  had  appointed  as  its  Judge  one  Green,  "a  pretended  Lawer  y®  best  I 
could  provide."    C.  O.  1/60,  88;   C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  392,  393. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  299 

tablished  in  Jamaica  ^  and  in  Barbados  ^  by  their  respective 
Governors,  in  virtue  of  the  authority  vested  in  them  by  the 
Duke  of  York.  When  the  Leeward  Islands  were  separated 
from  Barbados,  their  Governor  was  appointed  Vice- Admiral, 
and  a  similar  court  was  established  in  that  jurisdiction.^  As 
a  general  rule,^  the  governors  appointed  the  ofl&cials  of  these 

1  In  1662,  the  Governor  of  Jamaica,  Lord  Windsor,  estabUshed  a  Court 
of  Admiralty,  of  which  William  Michell,  one  of  the  CouncU,  was  appointed 
Judge.  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  355,  379,  8io.  The  early  records  of  this 
Court  are  preserved  in  the  Public  Record  Office,  Admiralty  Court,  Mis- 
ceUanea  959.     See  also  C.  O.  1/19,  27  i;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  942.  ^ 

2  In  addition  to  the  Court  of  Admiralty,  there  was  in  existence  in  Bar- 
bados a  Court  of  Exchequer  for  the  trial  of  revenue  cases.  In  1669,  a 
vessel  was  tried  in  this  Court  for  iUegal  trading.  C.  O.  1/24,  42 ;  C.  C. 
1669-1674,  p.  15.  In  1681,  although  not  so  instructed,  the  Governor, 
Sir  Richard  Button,  revived  this  Court  ojf  Exchequer.  The  Lords  of 
Trade  approved  of  this  step.     C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  179-181,  216. 

3  Sir  Charles  Wheler,  the  Governor,  so  reported  in  167 1.  C.  O.  1/27, 
52  ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  288,  291.  But  his  successor,  WiUiam  Stapleton, 
wrote  in  1672  that  there  was  no  court  of  this  nature  because,  although  he 
had  been  constituted  Vice- Admiral,  he  had  not  received  "any  orders  or 
instructions  from  his  Royal  highnesse  high  admirall  of  England."  C.  O. 
1/29,  i4i;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  392.  In  1676,  Stapleton  made  the  same 
report.  C.  0. 1/38,  65 ;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  PP.  497-S02.  In  1677,  the  desired 
commission  from  the  Duke  of  York  was  sent,  and  shortly  thereafter  ad- 
miralty courts  were  erected,  when  required,  in  the  separate  islands  under 
his  government.    C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  152,  244,  245 ;  C.  O.  155/1,  «•  4,  5- 

*  There  were  a  few  isolated  exceptions  in  which  the  appointment  was 
made  in  England.  Such  was  Barwicke's  in  Barbados  under  Lord  Wil- 
loughby,  which  has  already  been  mentioned.  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  617; 
Bodleian,  Clarendon  MSS.  81,  ff.  5,  6.  In  1665,  Sir  Thomas  Modyford, 
the  Governor  of  Jamaica,  appointed  George  Reid  Advocate-General  in  the 
Admiralty,  'in  pursuance  of  an  order  bearing  date  at  Whitehall  20th  day  of 
February  1665.'  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1662.  Cf.  no.  1092.  In  1680,  Gov- 
ernor Atkins  of  Barbados  complained  that  the  Registrar  of  the  Admiralty 
had  been  appointed  by  patent  in  England.    C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  532-536. 


300 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


courts —  the  judges,  registrars,  marshals,  and  advocates  ;i 
and,  m  some  instances,  they  even  sat  as  judges  themselves.^ 
During  the  period  under  consideration,  there  was  no 
regular  appeal  to  England  from  the  decisions  of  these  courts. 
This  led  to  occasional  injustice,  as  the  colonial  tribunals  were 
decidedly  lacking  in  legal  knowledge  and  experience.^  The 
only  method  of  seeking  redress  was  to  petition  the  King 
and  to  trust  to  the  Privy  Council  ordering  a  reversal  of  the 
colonial  sentence.  Thus,  in  1671,  the  ship  of  one  Rabba 
Couty,  a  Jewish  resident  of  New  York,  although  provided 

1  The  Governor  of  the  Leeward  Islands,  Sir  William  Stapleton,  appointed 
the  Deputy-Governors  of  the  separate  islands  to  be  Judges  of  the  Admiralty. 
C.  O.  i/s7,  51 ;  C.  O.  1/58,  Ss  i.  Governor  Modyford  of  Jamaica  appointed 
his  brother,  Sir  James,  Chief  Judge  of  the  local  Admiralty  Court.  C.  C. 
1661-1668,  no.  1689. 

2  In  1666,  Governor  Willoughby  of  Barbados  wrote  that  he  had  erected 
a  Court  of  Admiralty  and  'himself  sat  as  judge.'  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no. 
1246.  In  1682,  Sir  Richard  Button,  the  Governor,  also  sat  as  Judge  in 
this  Court.     C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  334,  417-419,  552. 

'  Already  at  this  time  these  courts  and  those  of  the  common  law  engaged 
in  disputes  as  to  the  extent  of  their  respective  jurisdictions.     Such  alter- 
cations had  been  common  in  England  and  were  later,  after  England  had 
extended  the  admiralty  jurisdiction  over  all  the  colonies,  of  frequent  occur- 
rence in  the  continental  colom'es.    W.  T.  Root,  The  Relations  of  Penn- 
sylvam'a  with  the  British  Government,  pp.  96  ei  seq.    In  1679,  the  Barbados 
Assembly  wrote  to  their  agents  in  London  that  the  admiralty  jurisdiction 
should  be  regulated,  as  this  Court  assumed  "power  to  determine  of  things 
done  upon  land,  &  even  to  proceed  upon  penall  Statutes  to  the  Great  Dis- 
couragement &  terror  of  people  tradeing  to  this  place."     C.  O.  31/2,  ff. 
339-341 ;    C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  352.    In  1680,  the  Governor  of  Jamaica, 
Lord  Carlisle,  was  instructed  to  see  that  in  future  no  parish  should  extend 
into  the  sea  beyond  the  high- water  mark,  because  by  former  laws  the  parishes 
were  so  bounded  as  to  encroach  on  the  admiralty.    C.  O.  138/3,  ff.  447 
et  seq.;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  624,  625. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  301 


with  a  pass  from  Governor  Lovelace  of  that  colony,  was 
condemned  by  the  Jamaica  Admiralty  Court  on  the  groimd 
that  Couty  was  not  a  denizen.  Couty's  complaint  to  the 
English  authorities  was  in  due  course  referred  to  the 
Council  for  Trade  and  Plantations,  which  reported  strongly 
against  the  legality  of  the  sentence,  and  accordingly  the 
King  ordered  that  the  confiscated  property  be  restored.^ 

The  question  of  allowing  such  appeals  arose  on  several 
other  occasions,  but  was  opposed  by  the  colonies  as 
subversive  of  their  government;^  and,  on  their  side,  the 
English  authorities  as  a  rule  cautiously  refrained  from 
interfering  with  decisions  of  the  colonial  courts.'  Toward 
the  end  of  this  period,  however,  a  system  of  appeals  was 
being  informally  estabHshed.  In  1686,  one  Thomas  Cook 
of  Ireland  petitioned  the  King,  stating  that  his  ship, 
the  O'Brien,  had  been  seized  by  Captain  St.  Lo  of  H.M.S. 

1  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  434-436,  453- 

*  In  1673,  on  the  Governor  of  Jamaica  putting  the  question  whether 
there  should  be  allowed  an  appeal  from  the  Admiralty  Court  to  the  King 
or  the  Court  of  Delegates  in  England,  the  Jamaica  Council  unanimously 
decided  'that  it  would  prove  of  ill  consequence  and  tend  to  the  subversion 
of  the  Government  if  once  admitted,  and  that  there  never  had  been  any 
such  precedent  of  an  appeal  allowed,  either  in  this  island  or  any  of  his 
Majesty's  dominions  beyond  the  seas.'    C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  527. 

3  In  1675/6,  the  English  Court  of  Admiralty  in  part  reversed  the  sentence 
of  the  Jamaica  Admiralty  Court,  but  on  an  appeal  being  taken,  the  Com- 
missioners of  Appeals  in  Cases  of  Reprisals  ruled  against  this  decision,  stat- 
ing that  they  conceived  they  had  nothing  before  them  but  "to  take  Care 
that  what  had  been  Judicially  done  in  Jamaica  might  not  be  overthrowne 
by  the  Proceedings  here,"  and  that  they  had  left  "all  the  proceedings  of 
that  Island  in  their  full  force  and  Validity;  And  the  rather  because  no 
Regular  Appeale  had  been  brought  or  entred  against  those  Proceedings." 
P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  648-650. 


i 


a 


302 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Dartmouth,  and  on  trial  had  been  unjustly  condemned  in 
the  Nevis  Admiralty  Court.^  This  petition  was  referred  to 
the  Lords  of  Trade,  who  in  turn  sought  the  opinion  of  Sir 
Thomas  Exton,  the  EngHsh  Admiralty  Judge.  He  reported  2 
that  in  his  opinion  the  seizure  was  not  warranted  by  law,^ 
and  "altho  there  may  not  in  Strictness  of  Law  Ly  any 
appeale,  yet  ex  speciali  gratia  of  his  majesty,  he  may  admitt 
y^  complaynants  to  except  ag^  this  Judgment :  and  with  sub- 

*  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  257. 
2  CO.  1/58,  83  viii. 

'  At  the  trial  held  in  the  Nevis  Admiralty  Court,  Captain  St.  Lo  de- 
manded the  condemnation  of  the  vessel  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  free 
and  qualified  to  trade  to  the  colonies.    The  evidence  was  undeniable  that 
the  ship  was  foreign-built,  that  her  destination  was  Jamaica,  that  part  of 
the  cargo  consisted  of  60  chests  of  candles  which  could  not  legaUy  be  im- 
ported directly  from  Ireland,  and  that  the  owner  had  ordered  the  sale  of 
the  vessel  and  cargo  in  Jamaica.     C.  O.  1/57,  51 ;  m.  1/58,  %s'^.    Exton 
based  his  opinion  that  the  condemnation  was  iUegal  on  the  fact  that  the 
seizure  had  been  made  nearly  icx)o  nules  from  Jamaica  and  out  of  sight 
of  any  of  the  colonies  and  that,  as  no  goods  had  been  imported,  consequently 
no  law  had  been  transgressed.    Ihid.  1/58,  83  vi,   viii.    Other  English 
authonties  agreed  with  Exton  as  to  the  illegality  of  the  condemnation. 
Itnd.  1/58,  St,  n-vii.     At  the  same  time,  this  Nevis  court  also  tried  another 
seizure  of  St.  Lo's,  the  Ester  of  Dublin.     St.  Lo  first  charged  that  the 
vessel  was  unfree,  but  it  was  established  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Court 
that  It  had  been  built  in  Ireland  and  that  no  aUen  owned  any  part  of  it 
This  complamt  was  dismissed,  and  then  St.  Lo  claimed  that  the  vessel 
had  imported  candles  directly  from  Dublin  in  violation  of  the  Staple  Act 
of  1663.    In  ans  er,  the  captain  of  the  seized  ship  stated  that  the  vessel 
had  been  seized  on  the  high  seas,  and  that,  as  no  importation  had  been 
made,  the  law  had  not  been  violated.    The  Court  sustained  the  captain 
and  freed  the  ship.    Ihid.  1/57,  51 ;  ihid.  1/58,  83  i.    It  should  be  remem- 
bered that,  while  in  this  case  there  might  have  been  some  doubts  as  to  the 
mtent  to  trade  to  the  English  colonies,  in  the  former  case  not  only  was  there 
none,  but  in  addition  the  vessel  was  unfree. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  303 

mission  to  your  Honors  for  y^  security  of  navigation  and 
trade  it  may  seem  necessary,  for  when  those  Admiraltyes 
find  there  is  a  superior  power  to  inspect  their  sentences 
&  so  to  confirme  or  reuerse,  they  wilbe  more  carefuU  to 
follow  the  rules  of  Law  and  so  administer  justice  impartially." 
Exton  further  added  that  he  had  seen  judgments  of  the 
other  colonial  admiralty  courts  which  seemed  to  him  very 
unjust,  but  which  he  could  not  redress,  "there  lying  no 
appeale  hither."  In  such  cases,  he  had  advised  the  injured 
parties  to  petition  the  King,  and  he  now  advised  that  appeals 
from  the  colonial  admiralty  courts  be  received,  calling  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  even  from  the  EngHsh  High  Court  of 
Admiralty  could  an  appeal  be  taken.  On  the  strength  of 
this  report,  it  was  decided  that  the  appeal  in  this  case  should 
be  heard  by  the  King  in  Council.^  Ultimately  in  the  follow- 
ing year,  after  both  sides  had  been  heard,  the  appeal  was 
dismissed  and  the  judgment  of  the  Nevis  court  was  con- 
firmed.2  In  other  cases  also  at  this  time,  if  it  appeared  on 
investigation  that  the  facts  warranted  it,  an  appeal  was 
allowed  from  the  colonial  courts.^ 

1  Ihid.  153/3,  ff.  232,  233;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  268.  According  to  the 
usual  procedure  in  appeals  from  colonial  courts  to  the  Privy  Council,  which 
still  is  maintained,  the  petitioner  had  to  deposit  security,  in  this  case  £1000. 

»  C.  O.  153/3,  f.  233;   C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  390. 

« In  1687,  Captain  Talbot,  R.N.,  was  by  Order  in  Council  allowed  to 
appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Jamaica  Admiralty  Court  in  the  case  of  the 
Swallow,  which  had  been  seized  by  him,  but  then  acquitted  "as  a  Ship 
free  to  trade  to  all  parts  within  the  Tropicks."  C.  O.  1/60,  40,  40  i ;  C.  C. 
1685-1688,  p.  365.  In  1687,  the  ship  Good  Intention,  which  had  been  seized 
by  Captain  St.  Lo  and  subsequently  condemned  in  the  Antigua  Admiralty 
Court,  was  on  arrival  in  England  arrested  by  its  former  owner  John  Kir- 


ii 


) 


Ii 


304 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


These  West  Indian  admiralty  courts  were  largely  used  for 
condemning  prizes  seized  from  the  enemy.  Jamaica  was 
the  centre  of  a  large  number  of  lawless  privateers  —-  the 
buccaneers  of  romantic  glamour  — who,  often  under  the 
protection  of  legal  commissions  issued  for  this  purpose, 
preyed  upon  Spanish  commerce.  In  many  instances  they 
brought  their  booty  for  condemnation  to  the  Jamaica 
Admiralty  Court.^  Later,  during  the  Dutch  and  French 
wars,  these  courts  were  used  for  the  trial  of  more  legitimate 
prizes.2  But,  in  addition,  a  not  inconsiderable  number  of 
seizures  for  illegal  trade  were  tried  in  these  courts.^  There 
was  considerable  uncertainty  and  a  number  of  disputes 
about  the  scope  of  their  jurisdiction  in  this  respect,  and  the 
practice  varied  in  the  different  courts.  Unfree  ships-— 
that  is,  vessels  not  conforming  as  to  crew,  build,  and 
ownership  to   the  provisions  of  the   Navigation  Acts  — 

wan.  The  case  was  tried  in  the  English  Admiralty  Court,  which  decided 
in  favor  of  Kirwan,  but,  as  it  was  not  a  court  of  appeal,  this  decree  was  in- 
effective. Kirwan  then  petitioned  the  King  for  permission  to  appeal, 
which  was  granted.  After  a  careful  investigation  of  the  facts  by  the  Lords 
of  Trade  and  a  hearing  of  the  arguments  of  counsel,  the  Privy  Council 
confirmed  the  sentence  in  favor  of  St.  Lo.  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  378,  381, 
3^2,  384,  398 ;  C.  O.  153/3,  ff.  275,  276. 

1  Of  these  condemnations  the  Crown  was  entitled  to  one-fifteenth  and 
the  Lord  High  Admiral  to  one-tenth.     C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  446,  1062. 

2  Cf.  Cal.  Dom.  167 5-1 676,  p.  8. 

»  Some  of  these  have  already  been  referred  to.  Such  a  case  evidently 
also  came  before  the  Jamaica  Admiralty  Court,  when  Sir  Charies  Lyttelton 
was  Judge,  on  Jan.  25,  1664.  Public  Record  Office,  Admiralty  Court, 
Miscellanea  959.  See  also  the  instructions  issued  to  Governor  Lord  Wind- 
sor in  1662  in  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  259,  and  the  cases  referred  to  in  C.  C. 
1 685-1 688,  pp.  99,  204. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  305 

When  seized  by  officers  of  the  navy,  were  by  the  statute 
made  triable  in  the  admiralty  courts.  But  the  question 
arose,  whether  or  no  such  courts  had  jurisdiction,  if  the 
seizure  had  been  made  by  the  navy  within  a  port  and  not 
on  the  high  seas. 

The  governors  not  infrequently  preferred  that  m  such 
instances  the  trial  should  be  in  the  common  law  courts, 
m  which  case  on  condemnation  they  would  be  en- 
titled to  one-third  of  the  proceeds,  whereas  nothing  would 
accrue  to  them  if  the  verdict  were  rendered  by  the  admiralty 
courts.  On  the  other  hand,  apart  from  any  other  reasons, 
the  officers  of  the  navy  preferred  the  admiralty  courts  as, 
in  case  of  condemnation  there,  they  received  one-half  of  the 
proceeds,  instead  of  the  third  to  which  the  informer  or  seizer 
was  entitled  from  the  common  law  courts.  1    Furthermore, 

>  In  1686,  after  trial  of  the  case,  John  White,  Judge  of  the  Jamaica  Ad- 
miralty Court,  ordered  the  dismissal  of  the  Swallow,  an  unfree  vessel  seized 
m  port  by  Captain  Talbot,  R.N.,  partly  on  the  ground  that  the  Admiralty 
had  jurisdiction  only  over  seizures  made  at  sea.    Lieutenant-Governor 
Molesworth  wrote  to  William  Blathwayt  that  Talbot  had  lost  the  case 
be<^use  hehad  Ubelled  the  ship  in  the  Admiralty,  "as  if  she  had  been  taken 
at  Sea,    whereas  she  was  taken  in  port,  and  also  because  he  had  not  posi- 
tively asserted  the  time  of  seizure.    'On  this  nicety'  judgment  was  given 
against  Talbot,  Molesworth  said,  and  then  added  that  the  case  should  have 
been  tned  in  a  common  law  court  with  a  jury.    A  few  months  later,  Moles- 
worth agam  wrote  to  Blathwayt  on  this  subject,  stating  that  Talbot  would 
not  have  lost  the  case  had  he  proceeded  correctly,  but  'whether  it  was  that 
he  scorned  to  bring  himself  forward  as  an  informer,  or  coveted  a  larger 
^re  than  belonged  to  him,  I  cannot  say,  but  certain  it  is  that  though  the 
ship  was  taken  in  harbour,  he  hbelled  her  as  if  taken  at  sea,  thereby  pre- 
tending unto  half  forfeit  for  himself  and  half  for  the  King.    Judgment  was 
given  against  him,  whereas  had  he  brought  his  action  at  Common  Law 
wth  a  tanquam  for  the  King  and  Governor  as  well  as  for  himself,  he  would 


\ 


3o6 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Ni 


« 


cl 


in  some  instances,  seizures  made  by  the  civil  authorities  were 
also  tried  in  these  courts.^ 

In  general,  the  prosecuting  officials  greatly  preferred 
to  try  seizures  in  the  admiralty  courts,  as  they  were  much 
more  likely  to  find  for  the  Crown.  In  cases  of  this  nature,^ 
they  acted  without  juries,  which  in  the  common  law  courts 
were  prone  to  be  over-lenient  toward  illegal  traders.  Some 
of  the  jurymen  might  be  engaged  in  the  same  devious  pur- 
suits. Moreover,  the  social  conscience  of  the  colonies  was 
apt  to  omit  smuggling  from  the  list  of  the  crimes.  As  a 
result,  there  was  slowly  developing  the  opinion  that,  in  order 
to  secure  the  effective  enforcement  of  the  colonial  system,  it 
would  be  necessary  to  establish  admiralty  courts  in  all  the 
colonies  and  to  give  them  jurisdiction  over  all  breaches  of 
the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation.  In  1680,  Sir  Henry 
Morgan^  sent  the  English  government  the  details  of  the 
trial  by  the  Jamaica  Admiralty  Court  of  a  vessel  condemned 
for  evading  the  local  revenue  laws.    This  verdict  was  com- 

have  had  no  difficulty/  ibid.  1/58,  64,  641;  ibid.  138/5,  ff.  326-333; 
C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  303,  356,  357.  For  another  interesting  case  at  Nevis, 
in  1671,  see  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  233. 

1  Cf.  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  434,  435 ;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  334,  417-419, 
552 ;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  525,  530. 

2  In  1680,  in  connection  with  a  trial  in  the  Nevis  Admiralty  Court  for 
riot  and  murder  at  sea,  the  Governor,  Sir  WiUiam  Stapleton,  as  Vice- 
Admiral,  appointed  the  Judges,  the  indictment  was  made  by  a  grand  jury, 
and  the  prisoner  was  acquitted  by  a  petty  jury.  C.  O.  155/1,  ff.  1-23 ; 
C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  570,  571. 

'  He  was  Judge  of  the  Jamaica  Admiralty  Court,  but  when,  at  this 
time,  as  Deputy-Governor,  he  assumed  charge  of  the  government,  he  ap- 
pointed John  White  to  preside  in  his  place.  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  342-344 ; 
C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  5,  6. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  307 

plained  of  bitterly,  and  strenuous  efforts  were  being  made  to 
have  it  reversed  in  England.^    Morgan  insisted  that  the 
trial  had  been  conducted  fairly,  and  added  that  without  the 
Admiralty  Court  Hhe  Acts  of  Navigation  cannot  be  enforced, 
for  it  is  hard  to  find  unbiassed  juries  in  the  Plantations  for 
such  cases.'    As  an  example,  he  cited  the  case  of  a  vessel 
that  had  come  directly  from  Ireland  to  Jamaica  with  several 
casks  of  Irish  soap,  on  account  whereof  it  was  seized.    The 
case  was  tried  in  the  common  law  court,  and  the  jury 
brought  in  a  verdict  for  the  defendant  on  the  evidence  of 
one  witness,  who  testified  under  oath  that  soap  was  a  food- 
stuff upon  which  a  man  could  live  for  a  month  and  that, 
as  it  could  be  considered  under  the  category  of  provisions, 
it  could  legally  be  imported  directly  from  Ireland  under  the 
Staple  Act  of  1663.2    When   such  fantastic  fictions  and 
tortuous  evasions  ^  could  impress  a  jury,  it  is  not  surprising 
that  the  imperial  officials  placed  greater  reliance  on  the 
admiralty  courts.  Jt  was  the  futility  of  attempting  to 
secure  a  verdict  from  a  jury  in  even  the  clearest  of  cases 
that  ultimately  led  to  the  extension  of  the  admiralty  courts 
throughout  all  the  colonies. 
The  royal  governors,  in  their  position  as  vice-admirals, 

»  On  this  case,  see  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  343, 344,  487,  552,  567,  568,  581, 
627,  631,  639;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  864;  Brit.  Mus.,  Stowe  MSS.  2724,  ff.  198, 
200 ;  C.  O.  138/3,  f.  292. 

^  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  487. 

^  In  the  case  of  the  Ester,  which  was  tried  in  1686  in  the  Nevis  Ad- 
miralty Court  for  importmg  candles  directly  from  Ireland,  the  defence 
claimed  that  there  was  "an  adjudged  Case  in  Jameco  that  Candles  Should 
bee  taken  as  provision  and  the  Ship  Bringing  them  acquitted  from  her 
Seizure."    C.  O.  1/57,  51;  ibid.  1/58,  831. 


308 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


I  ( 


4 


and  the  courts  established  in  virtue  of  the  authority  thus 
vested  in  them  were  the  direct  agents  of  the  EngHsh  Admi- 
ralty in  enforcing  the  laws  of  trade.    In  addition,  as  has  been 
seen,  the  Admiralty  was  represented  in  the  colonies  by  the 
officers    of   the   men-of-war   stationed   there.     Under    the 
Navigation  Act  of  1660,  it  was  their  duty  to  seize  unfree 
ships  trading  to  the  colonies.^    OccasionaUy  m  the  West 
Indies  such  seizures  were  made  by  them,^  but  no  especial 
activity  was  displayed  untH   the  eighties,  when  the  inde- 
pendent course  of  the  New   England  traders  threatened 
to  make  ineffective  the  carefully  devised  commercial  code. 
The  grave  difficulties  experienced  at  this  time  with  Massa- 
chusetts gave  an  exaggerated  sigmficance  to  any  reports  of 
illegal  trade  in  the  other  colonies.     In  1682,  the  Commis- 
sioners of  the  Customs  recommended  that  the  ships  of  the 
navy,  especially  those  sent  to  the  colonies,  should  have 
instructions  to  seize  vessels  violating  the  Navigation  Act ;  ^ 
and,  in  1685,  on  the  strength  of  a  letter  from  Captain  Jones 
of  H.M.S.  Diamond  at  Barbados,  wherein  was  mentioned 
"an  instance  that  contrary  to  Law  foreign  Vessels  are  per- 

1  In  1668,  the  Council  of  Trade  suggested,  among  other  means  for  sup- 
pressing iUegal  trade,  that  directions  be  given  to  the  ships  of  the  navy  and 
to  merchant  vessels  to  arrest  any  ship  trading  to  the  colonies  contrary  to 
law.  After  looking  into  the  matter,  the  Privy  CouncU  (the  King  being 
present)  declared,  early  in  1669,  that  "his  Majestys  Shipps  Of  Course" 
have  such  commissions  and  that,  if  any  merchant  ships  should  desire  them, 
"upon  glueing  Security  (with  other  usuallformaUtyes),"  the  Duke  of  York 
was  authorized  to  grant  them.  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1884;  ibid.  1669- 
1674,  p.  6;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  501. 

2  See,  e.g.,  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  233. 
^  Ibid.  1681-1685,  p.  529. 


)i 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRAXnTE  MACHINERY  309 

mitted  to  trade  there,"  they  urged  that  such  instructions 
be  again  sent.'    Accordingly,  Samuel  Pepys,  the  Secretary 
of  the  Admiralty,  was  directed  by  an  Order  in  Council  to 
instruct  the  commanders  of  the  ships  of  the  navy  on  all 
the  colonial  stations  to  seize  foreign  vessels  found  trading 
there.2    Immediately  thereafter,  the  authority  of  these  offi- 
cers was  considerably  amphfied,  for  they  were  also  specifi- 
caUy  instructed  to  seize  as  weU  such  vessels  as  were  found 
violating  the  other  provisions  of  the  trade  laws.' 
•   These  renewed  and  extended  orders  led  to  considerable 
activity.    In  the  West  Indies,  Captain  St.  Lo  of  H.M.S. 

.L^'  ^'  '^"'  ^''  ^^'^-  3^4/4.  f-  141.    The  abstract  in  C.  C.  1685- 
1688,  pp.  26,  27  greatly  exaggerates  the  statement  of  Jones.     In  con- 
sequence of  information  sent  by   Governor  Stapleton  of  the  Leeward 
Islands,  Danby  mtended  already  in  1678  to  speak  to  Secretary  Pepys  about 
procunng  instructions  for  the  men-of-war  in  the  Leeward  Islands  and  other 
colomes  to  assist  the  governors  in  seizing  ships  that  kept  out  of  their  reach 
and  loaded  without  making  entry.    Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679  p  076 
I  ^'  ^  i'y^'  ^-  '*'  •  ^-  ^-  '685-1688,  p.  27 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  II,  p.  81.    ■ 
P.  C.  Cal.  II,  pp.  85-88.    In  1685,  Henry  Guy,  on  behalf  of  the  Treas- 
ury also  wrote  to  WilUam  Blathwayt,  requesting  that  copies  of  the  detailed 
trade  instructions  issued  to  the  governors  might  be  forwarded  to  the  Ad- 
miralty for  d^tribution  to  the  captains  of  ships  serving  in  the  colonies, 
c.  c.  1685-1688,  p.  77.    In  1686,  Captain  St.  Lo  complained  that  the 
people  m  Boston,  Massachusetts,  would  not  "suffer  any  of  the  Kings  Com- 
manders to  make  Seizure  of  Shipps  or  goods  for  false,  or  irregular  importacon 
or  Exportacon  unless  they  can  assigne  it  as  a  Breach  of  the  Act  of  ye  i2«> 
of  his  late  Ma'^  or  have  warrants  from  hence  for  making  such  Seizures." 
The  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  reported  that  deputations  from  them 
in  pursuance  of  warrants  from  the  Treasury,  to  such  officers  of  the  navy  were' 
sufficient  authority  to  seize  by  vertue  of  aU  the  Plantacon  Laws  "    Treas- 
urer Rochester  accordingly  instructed  them  to  issue  such  deputations  to  the 
ships  of  the  navy  in  the  colonies.    Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  10 

I.  loO.  ' 


I 


oil 


i 


■T»'l 


i 


-i 


«i 


.♦ 


i;< 


i 


310 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Dartmouth  was  particularly  conspicuous  in  such  work.  On 
one  occasion,  in  1686,  three  vessels  seized  by  him  were  tried 
in  the  Nevis  Admiralty  Court.  ^  At  the  same  time,  Captain 
Talbot  of  H.M.S.  Falcon  was  similarly  occupied  on  the 
Jamaica  station. ^  But  this  use  of  the  navy  was  by  no 
means  confined  to  the  island  colonies.  In  1683,  Lord 
Howard  of  Effingham,  who  had  just  been  appointed 
Governor  of  Virginia  in  succession  to  Lord  Culpeper, 
urged  the  necessity  of  sending  a  frigate  to  protect  the 
colony  and  to  suppress  pirates  and  illegal  traders.  In 
this  connection,  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  re- 
ported to  the  Lords  of  Trade  ^  that  they  had  already 
in  1682  advised  the  use  of  ships  of  the  navy  for  this  pur- 
pose, and  that  they  favored  the  appointment  of  a  ketch 
to  be  permanently  stationed  in  Virginia.*  The  Lords  of 
Trade  accordingly  accepted  Effingham's  recommendation; 
and,  in  1684,  the  ketch  Quaker  under  Captain  Allen  was  sent 
to  Virginia  on  this  service.  On  her  arrival,  the  Secretary 
of  Virginia  wrote  that  he  hoped  she  would  protect  the  colony 

1  C.  O.  1/57,  51 ;  ibid.  1/58,  831.  Of  these,  one  was  proven  to  be  free 
and  was  condemned  for  violating  the  Staple  Act  of  1663.  The  question  of 
St.  Lo's  authority  to  seize  such  an  offender  was  not  raised ;  it  rested  purely 
on  his  instructions,  not  upon  the  statutes. 

2  Ihid.  138/5,  ff.  199-219;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  356,  357. 
»  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  529. 

*  Said  vessel,  they  said,  should  receive  instructions  from  them,  and  should 
be  under  the  orders  of  their  customs  officials  in  Virginia  and  Maryland, 
subject  naturally  to  the  superior  authority  of  the  governors  of  these  colonies. 
In  addition,  they  advised  that  a  ketch  be  likewise  sent  to  the  West  Indies, 
and  that  the  men-of-war  at  Jamaica  should  assist  their  officials  in  that 
colony. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  311 

and  would  prevent  the  frauds  too  often  practised  there  by 
the  New  England  traders.^  Captain  Allen  was,  however,  not 
only  zealous,  but  somewhat  over-punctilious  in  the  execu- 
tion of  his  duties,  and  soon  found  himself  unpopular  in  a 
society  not  accustomed  to  a  meticulously  strict  interpreta- 
tion of  the  law.  On  December  29,  1685,^  he  wrote  to  the 
English  authorities  that  the  Virginians  were  very  angry  at 
his  staying  there  and  claimed  that  he  had  spoiled  their  trade, 
because  he  would  not  let  them  cheat  the  King.  They  called 
him,  he  added,  'old  rogue  and  old  dog,'  and  when  they  saw 
his  ship,  they  said:  "Here  comes  the  devil's  ketch." 

In  1686,  H.M.S.  Deptford  under  Captain  Crofts  was  sent 
to  assist  Captain  Allen  in  preventing  illegal  trading  to 
Virginia  and  Maryland.'  His  over-zealousness  in  seizing 
vessels  on  purely  technical  charges,  when  no  fraud  had  been 
intended,  together  with  apparently  justified  charges  against 
him  of  attempts  to  levy  blackmail  on  innocent  traders,^ 
quickly  brought  him  into  conflict  with  the  local  authorities. 
In  1687,  Governor  Howard  registered  with  the  English 
government  formal  charges,  of  which  Pepys  wrote, "  I  doubt 
many  of  them  too  justly  brought ; "  and  Crofts  was  ordered 
home  to  answer  them.^     The  Governor  was  sustained,®  and, 

1  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  531,  557,  572,  658,  659. 

«  C.  O.  1/60,  60  i;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  465. 

»  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  240. 

*  Regarding  one  of  these  charges  of  extortion,  the  Surveyor  General, 
Patrick  Mein,  wrote  in  1686  to  Lord  Howard,  that  he  believed  Crofts  was 
guilty.    C.  O.  1/62,  20  xi. 

^  lUd.  1/61,  6oi;  iM.  1/62,  20,  2oi-xv;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  240, 
372-374,  387,  388,  417,  444,  465-467,  495- 

«  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  555. 


312 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


in  1688,  Thomas  Perry  replaced  Crofts  as  commander  of 
H.M.S.  Deptford.  On  December  31,  1688,  Effingham  issued 
to  him  detailed  instructions  about  enforcing  the  laws  of 
trade  and  navigation.^  Perry  was  to  inform  himself  of  the 
statutes  in  question  and  was  to  procure  for  his  own  use  a 
copy  of  the  book  of  rates  containing  them ;  he  was  strictly 
to  examine  and  search  all  ships  that  he  might  meet  "in 
Cruseing  or  Saileing  from  Port  to  Port  within  his  Ma*^ 
Dominion  of  Virginia  or  Province  of  Maryland" ;  and,  while 
in  port,  he  was  to  allow  no  ship  to  depart  or  enter  without  a 
permit  from  the  Collector  of  the  Customs. 

In  one  of  its  phases,  this  quarrel  between  Crofts  and  Lord 
Howard  illustrates  a  serious  defect  in  the  established  admin- 
istrative system.  The  fact  that  three  of  the  great  English 
executive  departments  were  represented  in  the  crown 
colonies  by  distinct  and  separate  agents  implied  a  division 
of  authority,  which  inevitably  led  to  disputes  impairing 
the  smooth  running  of  the  machinery.  Legally,  the  royal 
governor  was  the  supreme  executive  authority  in  the  colony, 
but  occasionally  it  was  only  after  considerable  difficulty  and 
delay  that  he  could  make  his  will  effective.  The  Treasury 
and  Admiralty  officials  in  the  colonies  at  times  thwarted 
his  wishes  and  acted  independently,  trusting  to  secure  the 
support  of  their  immediate  superiors  in  England,  to  whom 
they  were  directly  responsible  and  whose  influence  would 
naturally  outweigh  that  of  the  governor.  In  so  far  as  the 
customs  officials  were  concerned,  such  incidents  were  rare 
in  the  royal  colonies.    These  officials  were  usually  over- 

1  C.  0. 1/63,  92. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  313 

awed  by  the  superior  status  and  dignity  of  the  Gov- 
ernor, and  hesitated  to  disobey  him.  But  the  officers  of 
the  navy  were,  in  general,  of  much  higher  social  rank 
than  the  customs  officials  and  occupied  posts  of  greater 
importance.  Consequently  they  were  much  more  inde- 
pendent, and  friction  between  them  and  the  governors 
was  not  an  infrequent  occurrence.  Ships  of  the  navy  on 
colonial  stations  were  placed  under  the  orders  of  the 
royal  governors,^  but  the  captains  at  times  refused  to  re- 
spect them,  while  the  governors  on  their  part  occasionally 
arrogated  to  themselves  greater  authority  than  was  war- 
ranted by  their  commissions.^ 

Captains  Allen  and  Crofts,  while  on  the  Virginia 
and  Maryland  station,  were  subject  to  the  commands 
of  Governor  Howard  of  Virgmia.  During  the  course  of 
their  bitter  disputes,  some  of  Crofts's  officers  complained 
to  the  Governor  of  ill  usage  on  the  part  of  their  cap- 
tain. Whereupon  Lord  Howard  summoned  Crofts  to  ap- 
pear before  him  to  decide  these  differences,  and,  on  Crofts 
refusing  to  heed  the  summons,  threatened  to  send  him 
home  in  irons.^  Crofts  was  supported  in  his  refusal  by 
his  superior  officer,  Captain  Allen,  who  claimed  that  Lord 
Howard  had  no  authority  to  summon  a  naval  officer  before 
the  Council  at  Jamestown.  'Such  differences,'  he  claimed, 
'  should  be  submitted  to  the  King,  or  tried  by  Court-martial, 

1  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  757,  763. 

2  See,  e.g.,  the  claims  of  Governor  Lynch  in  Jamaica.  C.  C.  1681-1685, 
pp.  428,  491-493,  597;  nos.  1433,  1480-1484,  1711,  1935,  2032,  2044,  2051, 
2055,  2060,  2063. 

3  im.  1685-1688,  pp.  372-374,  387,  388,  444,  465. 


#1' 

I 


V  i' 


314 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


for  I  do  not  think  the  Council  here  competent  to  deal  with 
affairs  of  the  Navy.'  ^ 

Such  quarrels,  which  cropped  up  every  now  and  again, 
hampered  the  efficiency  of  the  administrative  system  and 
interfered  with  the  enforcement  of  the  laws.  They  were  a 
direct  result  of  the  triple  system  of  control  in  England  and 
the  absence  of  an  absolutely  supreme  central  authority  in  the 
colony,  which  could  make  its  will  unmediately  effective.  If 
such  difficulties  existed  in  the  royal  provinces,  it  is  not  surpris- 
ing that  far  graver  obstacles  were  encountered  in  the  charter 
and  proprietary  governments.  For  in  these  quasi-indepen- 
dent jurisdictions  there  was  no  royal  governor,  and  the  local 
authorities  viewed  with  suspicion  and  dislike  all  agents  of 
the  imperial  government.  They  were  over-prone  to  look 
upon  every  act  of  the  customs  officials  and  of  the  officers  of 
the  navy  as  an  invasion  of  the  Uberties  guaranteed  by  the 
colonial  charters.  The  resulting  friction,^  while  far  more 
serious,  was  similar  in  its  manifestations  to  that  in  the  royal 
provinces.  But  it  proceeded  from  a  radically  different 
cause.  In  the  one  case,  the  trouble  was  due  to  a  defect  in 
the  administrative  machinery,  which  could  have  been  reme- 
died by  a  slight  readjustment.  In  the  other,  it  was  due  to 
what  was  regarded  by  these  self-governing  communities 
as  the  intrusion  of  an  ahen  authority  within  their  hmits; 

1  C.  C.  168 5-1688,  pp.  466,  467.  The  Duke  of  Albemarle's  commission 
as  Governor  of  Jamaica  gave  him  powers  as  Vice-Admiral  to  suspend  the 
officers  of  the  royal  navy.    Ibid.  p.  293. 

2  This  friction,  especially  in  Massachusetts  and  Maryland,  will  be 
treated  subsequently  when  describing  the  development  of  these  colonies 
under  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation. 


CENTRAL  AND  LOCAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  MACHINERY  315 

and  for  this  there  was  no  corrective  other  than  a  revolution- 
ary change  in  their  poKtical  status.  The  difficulty  in  the 
crown  colonies  was  superficial  and  largely  personal;  that 
in  the  charter  and  proprietary  colonies  was  fundamental  and 
in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word  political. 


i 


il( 


I 


1' 


ft  I 

I 

i 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES 

Classification  of  the  colonies  according  to  their  imperial  value  —  The  de- 
mand for  slaves  in  the  West  Indies  — The  EngHsh  African  Company  — 
Dutch  opposition  to  its  trade  — The  complaints  of  Barbados  against 
the  Company  — Its  reorganization  m  1672  — Opposition  of  the  West 
Indian  colonies  to  the  Royal  African  Company  — Its  attempts  to  supply 
Spanish  America  —  The  interiopers. 

The  English  colonies  of  the  Restoration  period  form  them- 
selves into  varying  groups  depending  upon  the  canon  of  clas- 
sification that  may  be  adopted.    The  geographical  standard 
would  roughly  divide  them,  according  to  their  configuration 
and  location,  into  island  and  continental  colonies;  or,  apply- 
ing the  more  discriminating  physiographic  tests  of  climate, 
soil,  and  natural  resources,  would  further  separate  them  into 
a  number  of  subdivisions.    Obviously,  such  a  classification 
would  differ  radically  from  one  based  upon  the  nature  of 
their  internal  political  organization.    From  this  standpoint 
the  colonies  fall  into  three  distinct  groups :  the  royal  prov- 
inces with  their  elective  assembhes  and  crown-appointed 
governors ;  the  proprietary  colonies  whose  poKtical  organiza- 
tion was  on  a  monarchical  basis  and  closely  resembled  that 
of  the  crown  colonies,  the  fundamental  distinction  being 
that  the  proprietor,  not  the  King,  appointed  the  governor  ; 
and  thirdly,  the  charter  colonies,  which  were  in  essence  com- 
pletely self-governing  communities  of  a  more  or  less  demo- 

316 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    317 

cratic  type.  When  judged,  not  by  the  character  of  their 
local  poHtical  institutions,  but  from  the  standpoint  of  im- 
perial pubHc  law  and  administration,  the  colonies  again 
grouped  themselves  somewhat  differently  into  two  classes; 
first,  the  royal  provinces,  and  secondly,  the  charter  and 
proprietary  colonies.  In  the  former,  the  executive  directly 
represented  the  Crown  and  brought  the  imperial  govern- 
ment into  immediate  contact  with  the  inhabitants.  In 
the  latter,  this  relationship  was  mediate,  as  the  colonial 
charters  interposed  a  proprietor  or  a  corporation  between 
the  Crown  and  its  subjects  in  these  colonies.  This  was 
the  general  broad  classification  adopted  by  the  EngHsh 
government  in  its  routine  work  of  colonial  administration. 
Colonies  so  different  institutionally  as  Connecticut  from 
Pennsylvania,  or  as  Rhode  Island  from  Maryland,  were 
placed  together  in  one  comprehensive  group  called  the 
Proprieties. 

For  the  purposes  of  this  work,  no  one  of  these  various 
classifications  is  available.  In  a  study,  which  lays  stress  upon 
the  economic  features  of  the  old  Empire,  and  whose  aim  is 
to  describe  the  commercial,  not  the  poHtical,  system,  the  sub- 
division must  necessarily  be  based  upon  different  character- 
istics if  it  is  to  be  at  aU  significant.  EngHsh  colonial  poHcy 
was  dominated  by  economic  considerations,  and  as  has 
been  pointed  out,  one  of  the  chief  advantages,  if  not  the  main 
one,  anticipated  from  the  movement  of  expansion,  was  the 
development  of  new  sources  of  supply  in  America  that 
would  serve  to  free  England  from  dependence  upon  foreign 
nations.    The   somewhat   vague,   yet   clearly   discernible. 


ill 


3i8 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


i 

i 


comprehensive  aim  of  the  EngKsh  statesmen  was  to  mould 
the  colonies  into  a  self-sufficing  commercial  Empire,  of 
which  each   section   should  supplement  the   economic' ac- 
tivities and  resources  of  the  others.    Some  of  the  colonies 
developed  mto  such  complementary  economic  units,  whUe 
others  equaUy  conspicuously  faDed  to  answer  this  funda- 
mental purpose  of  EngUsh  policy.    There  were  various 
gradations  of  complete  and  partial  failure  or  success,  but, 
in  general,   according  to  this  canon  the  colonies  divide 
themselves  into  Wo  distinct  groups. 

The  colonies,  which  in  part  or  virtually  completely  faUed 
to  correspond  with  the  aims  and  ideals  of  EngUsh  policy, 
were  those  on  the  continent  north  of  the  Une  to  be  drawn' 
later  by  Mason  and  Dixon.     Conspicuous  among  them  were 
the  New  England  settlements  which,  owing  to  climate  and 
resources  sunilar  to  those  of  England,  instead  of  supplement- 
ing the  economic  life  of  the  metropolis,  closely  paraUeled 
it  m  many  phases  of  its  activities.    The  same  was  true,  and 
scarcely  to  a  less  extent,  of  New  York,  the  Jerseys'  and 
Pennsylvania.    In  general,  these  northern  continental  colo- 
nies with  their  temperate  cUmate  could  not  produce  the 
exotic  commodities  desired  in  England.   With  the  noteworthy 
exception  of  furs,  the  products  of  their  fields,  forests,  and 
waters  could  as  a  rule  not  be  profitably  shipped  for  sale  to 
the  EngUsh  markets;  and,  even  if  they  could  so  have  been, 
m  many  instances  they  were  decidedly  not  wanted  there  as 
they  competed  with  the  interests  of  the  landed  class,  then 
the  predominant  poUtical  force  in  England. 
The  other  group  consisted  of  such  colonies,  whose  eco- 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES   319 

nomic  activities,  mstead  of  competmg  with  those  of  England, 
supplemented  and  stimulated  them.    It  was  composed  of 
the  island  colonies  and  of  some  on  the  contment.    Occupy- 
ing an  isolated  position  m  this  group,  and  one  so  unique  that 
it  might  be  placed  in  a  subdivision  by  itself,  was  Newfound- 
land.   Neither  in  law,  nor  in  practice,  was  Newfoundland 
as  yet  a  fuU-fledged  colony,  although  England  exercised 
sovereignty  over   the  southeastern  section  of    the  island. 
Apart    from    some    rudunentary   permanent    settlements 
having  no  regular  form  of  government,  it  consisted  of  a 
series  of  fishing  stations,  where  the  fishermen  from  the  West 
of  England  gathered  yearly  during  the  summer  months  to 
procure  their  cargoes  of  cod-fish  for  the  markets  of  Cath- 
oUc  Europe.    It,  however,  weU  answered  the  aims  of  the 
EngUsh  government ;  as  a  valuable  nursery  of  seamen  and 
as  a  source  of  sea  power,  it  was  from  the  imperial  standpoint 
a  valuable  economic  asset.    Conspicuous  among  the  other 
colonies  of  this  group  were  the  West  Indies— Barbados, 
Jamaica,    and   the   Leeward   Islands  — whose  chief   crop,' 
sugar,  was  one  of  the  mainstays  of  English  commerce.    In 
this  group  also  may  be  placed  the  Bermudas  and  the  Ba- 
hamas.    Their  economic  importance  was  Umited  by  their 
scant  natural  resources,  but  they  were  bemg  valued  more 
and  more  for  their  strategic  position  on   main-traveUed 
trade-routes.    The  colonies  on  the  continent  comprised  in 
this  group  were  especiaUy  Virginia  and  Maryland,  whose 
staple  product,  tobacco,  entered  very  largely  mto  England's 
foreign  trade.    The  settlements  to  the  south  of  Virginia 
were  stiU  in  a  formative  state  and  had  as  yet  not  found 


H 


il 


f 


320 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


the  path  that  brought  them  prosperity  in  the  eighteenth 
century,  when  the  rice  of  South  Carolina  and  the  tar  and 
pitch  of  North  CaroUna  formed  important  elements  in 
England's  colonial  trade. 

One  feature  of  the  economic  structure  of  these  sugar  and 
tobacco  colonies,  which  distinguishes  them  sharply  from  the 
northern  continental  communities,  was  that  ultimately  their 
resources  were  in  varying  degrees,  yet  to  a  predominant 
extent,  developed  by  means  of  African  slave  labor.  In 
Virginia  and  Maryland  this  outcome  was  witnessed  only  in 
the  following  century,  but  already  at  this  time  in  the  West 
Indies  the  large  plantation  cultivated  by  negroes  was  estab- 
Hshing  itself  as  the  normal  type  of  production.  In  the  sugar 
fields  of  Barbados  at  a  most  rapid  pace,  and  more  gradually 
elsewhere  in  the  West  Indies,  white  labor  was  being  dis- 
placed by  the  negro  slave.^  The  prosperity  of  these  colonies 
was  considered  to  depend  upon  this  sytem  of  labor,  and  their 
demands  for  a  cheap  and  abimdant  supply  of  African  slaves 

1  In  1667,  it  was  estimated  that  in  1643  there  were  in  Barbados  only 
6400  negroes,  as  against  more  than  50,000  in  1666.  (C.  C.  1661-1668,  no. 
1657.)  In  his  Description  of  Barbados,  John  Scott  stated  that  in  1645 
the  colony  had  5680  slaves  and  in  1667,  82,023.  (Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS. 
3662,  ff.  54*/'*  of  the  volume  reversed.)  In  1668,  Governor  Willoughby 
stated  that  the  total  population  was  60,000,  of  which  40,000  were  negroes. 
(P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  521,  522 ;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1788.)  Nicholas  Blake  in 
1669  also  estimated  the  slave  population  at  40,000.  (C.  C.  1699,  pp.  589 
et  seq.)  At  this  tune,  the  niunber  of  negroes  in  the  other  colonies  was  far 
less.  According  to  Governor  Willoughby,  in  1668  there  were  in  Antigua 
only  700  and  in  Montserrat  300.  {Ibid.  1661-1668,  no.  1788;  P.  C.  Cal.  I, 
pp.  521,  522.)  In  1670,  it  was  estunated  that  Jamaica  had  2500  negroes. 
(C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  52,  53.)  In  167 1,  Governor  Berkeley  stated  that  Vir- 
ginia had  2000  negro  slaves.    (C.  O.  1/26,  77  i ;  Hening  II,  pp.  511-517-) . 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    321 

became  increasingly  insistent.    The  negroes  were  deemed, 
to  use  a  contemporary  expression,  'the  strength  and  sinews 
of  this  western  world.'  ^    Their  scarcity,  according  to  Sir 
Thomas  Lynch,^  was  'the  grand  obstruction'  in  Jamaica  and 
'without  them  the  Plantations  will  decline  and  the  people 
be  discouraged.'    'These  settlements,'  wrote  Lieutenant- 
Governor  William  Willoughby  of  Barbados  in  1666,  'have 
been  upheld  by  negroes  and  cannot  subsist  without  supplies 
of  them.'  3    As  the  prosperity  of  the  most  valuable  colonies 
was  based  upon  the  negro  slave,  the  EngHsh  government 
felt  it  incumbent  to  follow  the  lead  of  the  other  colonizing 
nations  — of  these,  the  country  of  Torquemada  and  Alba 
alone  did  not  engage  in  this  demoralizing  trade  — and   to 
take  steps  that  the  colonial  planter  should  not  be  dependent 
upon  foreign  traders  for  his  essential  supply  of  labor.     Such 
dependence,  it  was  logically  held,  would  jeopard  the  entire 
imperial  structure.    The  measures  taken  to  obviate  this 
apparently  grave  peril  constituted  an  important  feature  of 
English  colonial  policy.    The  regulation  of  the  African  trade 
was  an  integral  and  organic  part  of  the  colonial  system,  and 
hence  some  account  thereof  is  an  essential  preliminary  to 
an  examination  of  the  development  of  the  plantation  colonies 
during  this  period. 

The  Portuguese  and  Spanish  had  made  extensive  use  of 
this  system  of  labor  in  developmg  their  American  dominions. 
Thanks  to  the  negro's  brawn  and  toil,  tropical  and  sub- 
tropical America,  where  the  climatic  conditions  debarred 

^  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  577.  2  7^  ^^  ^^^^ 

'  Ibid.  no.  1281.    Cf.  nos.  618,  756. 


322 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


the  Caucasian  from  strenuous  physical  labor,  did  not  remain 
an  uncultivated  desert.    These  negroes  were  obtained  from 
West  Africa,  whose  hfe  until  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade 
in  the  nineteenth  century  was  intimately  connected  with 
that  of  the  plantation  colonies  in  the  New  World.     Up  to 
that  time,  in  so  far  as  Europe  was  concerned,  "West  African 
history  was  the  complement  of  West  Indian."  ^    In  that 
pestiferous  region,  slavery  was  a  time-hallowed  mstitution, 
"bound  up  with  the  whole  social  and  economic  organiza- 
tion of  West  African  society."  ^    The  Europeans  were  thus 
responsible  only  to  the  extent  that  they  made  use  of  an 
already    existing    obnoxious    system    and    aggravated    its 
inherent  evils.    At  times  there  were  cases  of  kidnapping, 
but  the  trade  had  its  well-charted  channels;  and,  as  a 
general  rule,  the  slaves  were  procured  by  the  European 
traders  from  African  dealers  in  barter  for  merchandize.^ 
By  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  traffic  was 
on  a  firmly  estabUshed  and  well-organized  basis.     It  scarcely 
aroused  any  moral  opposition  and  was  generally  regarded 
as  an  unquestionably  legitimate  branch  of  commerce.     In 
1684  was  pubHshed  anonymously  a  bitter  attack  on  the 
methods  of  the  slave-trade  and  the  treatment  of  the  negroes 
in  the  EngUsh  West  Indies,  which  was  so  comprehensive 
and  convincing  in  character  as  to  amount  to  a  condemna- 
tion of  the  institution  of  slavery  itself.*    Four  years  later,  a 

» Lucas,  Historical  Geography,  West  Africa  (2d  ed.),  p.  39. 
« J.  A.  TiUinghast,  The  Negro  in  Africa  and  America  (Am.  Economic 
Assoc.  1902),  p.  88. 

*  Lucas,  West  Africa,  pp.  70,  71. 

*  PhHotheos  Physiologus,  Friendly  Advice  to  the  Gentlemen-Planters 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    323 

similar  protest  was  made  by  the  Pennsylvania  Quakers,^ 
but  these  isolated  voices  called  forth  no  echoing  response 
from  a  completely  unsympathetic  and  largely  uncompre- 
hending world. 

Ever  since  the  days  of  Henry  VIII,  the  English  had  inter- 
mittently engaged  in  tradmg  to  Africa.^    EUzabeth^s  Guinea 
Company  had  been  followed  by  two  others  of  Stuart  crea- 
tion,3  but  the  main  object  of  these  early  enterprises  was  to 
procure  gold,  ivory,  wax,  gum,  and  other  African  commodi- 
ties.   Until  the  successful  introduction  of  the  sugar  cane  in 
Barbados,  EngUshmen  were  but  sUghtly  concerned  in  the 
slave-trade.     With  the  advent  of  the  sugar  industry  there 
arose  an  insistent  and  steady  demand  for  negro  slaves,^ 
which  naturaUy  greatly  altered  the  nature  of  England's 
African  trade.    But  slight  success,  however,  was  attained 
until  the  Restoration,^  when  a  determined  effort  was  made 
to  obtain  an  important  share  of  this  lucrative  commerce. 
Two  objects  were  held  in  view.    In  the  first  place,  the  aim 
was  to  secure  an  adequate  supply  of  slaves  for  the  EngHsh 
colonies,  thus  freeing  them  from  the  danger  of  having  to 

of  the  East  and  West  Indies,  printed  by  Andrew  Sowle  in  1684.  Sowle  printed 
a  number  of  books  and  pamphlets  for  the  Quakers.  A.  C.  Myers,  Narratives 
of  Early  Pennsylvania,  eic.,  p.  224. 

*  W.  H.  Smith,  A  PoUtical  History  of  Slavery  I,  p.  6;  W.  E.  B.  Du  Bois, 
The  Suppression  of  the  African  Slave-Trade,  pp.  20,  21 ;  E.  R.  Turner,  The' 
Negro  in  Pennsylvania,  pp.  65,  66. 

2  W.  R.  Scott,  Joint-Stock  Companies  to  1720,  II,  pp.  3-1 1. 

3  Beer,  Origins,  p.  220  n. ;  Certain  Considerations  Relating  to  the  Royal 
African  Company  of  England  (London,  1680),  p.  3. 

*  Beer,  Origins,  p.  415. 

^  W.  R.  Scott,  op.  cit.  n,  pp.  15-17. 


324 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


I 

"I' 


rely  upon  foreign  traders  and  also  making  the  English  Empire 
more  self-sufficient.  Furthermore,  the  purpose  was  to  com- 
pete with  the  Dutch  and  other  slave-traders  in  supplying 
the  insatiable  demands  of  Spanish  America.  The  familiar 
economic  arguments  of  the  mercantilistic  type  were  used  to 
prove  the  national  advantage  of  the  trade.  ^ 

Owing  to  the  intrenched  position  of  the  Dutch  on  the 
slave-coast  and  the  peculiar  conditions  surrounding  the 
trade,  it  could  be  carried  on  successfully  by  private  indi- 
viduals only  if  they  were  extensively  supported  and  pro- 
tected by  their  government.    The  sole  other  alternative 
was  a  monopoHstic  company  with  large  resources.    Outside 
of  European  waters  armed  commerce  was  still  the  rule, 
and  there  was  scant  likelihood  that  the  Dutch  would  allow 
improtected  private  merchants  to  trade  peacefully  on  the 
slave-coast.   Moreover,  m  order  to  faciHtate  commerce,  trad- 
ing stations  had  to  be  estabHshed,  and  forts  also  had  to  be 
erected  to  repel  European  enemies  and  to  defend  the  traders 
against  the  savage  tribes  that  sold  the  weaker  enslaved 
races  to  the  Europeans.     Short  of  abandoning  the  traffic 
entirely  to  foreigners,  the  trade  to  Africa  could  have  been 
left  free  and  open  to  all  Englishmen  only  if  the  government 
were  to  undertake  its  entire  regulation  and  defence,  sending 
out  convoys  to  protect  the  traders  and  building  and  main- 
taining forts  and  stations.    Such  a  course  would  have 
necessitated  the  assertion  and  maintenance  of  English  sover- 
eignty over  portions  of  West  Africa  and  would  have  led  to 

^  Certain  Considerations  Relating  to  the  Royal  African  Company  of 
England  (London,  1680),  pp.  1-5. 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND   THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    325 

interminable  disputes  and  conflicts  with  the  European  pow- 
ers interested  in  the  slave-trade.  Moreover,  the  finances 
of  a  seventeenth-century  .government  could  not  stand  the 
strain  of  so  extensive  an  understanding.  Even  so  restricted 
as  was  then  the  scope  of  governmental  activities,  the  ex- 
penditures were  wont  to  exceed  the  income.  Parliament 
was  chary  in  its  grants,  and  the  taxpayer  was  keenly  sensi- 
tive to  any  additional  burdens.  Hence,  as  was  customary  in 
such  instances,  recourse  was  had  to  the  device  of  a  privileged 
company,  to  which  was  granted  a  monopoly  of  trade  in 
return  for  the  great  expense  and  risk  necessarily  involved 
in  an  undertaking  of  this  nature.^ 

Towards  the  end  of  1660,  the  first  African  Company  of 
the  Restoration  era  was  formed  with  the  Duke  of  York 
at  its  head.2  Charles  II  personally  invested  in  this  enter- 
prise, which  was  energetically  carried  on.^  But  events  soon 
showed  that  the  resources  of  a  much  more  powerful  and 
wealthy  organization  were  needed  if  England  were  to  secure 
a  firm  foothold  in  West  Africa.  The  EngHsh  Company  was 
bitterly  opposed  by  the  Dutch,  who,  during  their  protracted 
war  of  independence  from  Spain,  had  succeeded  in  ousting 
the  Portuguese  from  West  Africa  and,  as  their  successors, 

an  1663,  the  EngKsh  African  Company  stated  that  in  1660  the  trade 
was  carried  on  by  individuals,  who  were  a  constant  prey  to  the  Dutch,  'and 
were  quite  tired  out  of  the  trade  by  their  great  and  frequent  losses!  .  .  . 
So  if  his  Majesty  had  not  established  a  company  the  nation  had  probably 
by  this  time  been  quite  driven  out  of  it.'  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  618.  See 
also  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  220-225. 

^  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  408. 

3  Ihid.  nos.  1 20,  206.    In  1662,  the  Company  agreed  to  deliver  300  negroes 
in  Jamaica.    Ihid.  no.  287. 


326 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


now  claimed  the  slave-trade   as   their  exclusive  national 
preserve.^    They  treated  aU  other  European  traders,  even  at 
unoccupied  points  on  the  West  African  coast,  as  intruders 
and  did  not  hesitate  to  use  violence  in  expelling  them' 
The  first  conspicuous  act  of  aggression  came,  however  from 
the  English.    In  1661,  Captain  Robert  Hohnes,  in  command 
of  a  small  naval  force,  seized  some  Dutch  trading  stations 
to  which  England  had  a  more  or  less  vaUd  claim.^    In  thei^ 
turn,  the  Dutch  stirred  up  the  natives  against  the  EngUsh 
and  forcibly  interfered  with  their  commerce.    In  1661  and 
1662,  two  EngUsh  ships  were  seized  on  the  African  coast 
by  the  Dutch  and  another  was  prevented  from  trading  with 
the  natives.'    In  order  to  cope  with  the  powerful  Dutch 
West  India   Company,  England  obviously  needed  a  far 
stronger  Company  than  that  of  1660.    Accordingly  the 
patent  of  1660  was  surrendered;  and,  on  Januaiy  10,  1663 
a  new  charter  was  issued  to  the  Company  of  Royal  Adven- 
turers trading  to  Africa,  granting  to  it  aU  of  Africa  from 
Sallee  to  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  and  forbidding  aU  other 
Enghshmen  to  trade  there.*    Among  the  patentees,  besides 
the  Queen  and  other  members  of  the  royal  famUy  as  weU 
as  a  number  of  great  noblemen,  were   the  leading  men 
occupied  in  colonial  enterprises  and  their  administration 
such  as  Lord  Berkeley,  Sir  George  Carteret,  Sir  John  Col- 

•  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  467,  553. 

*IbU  nos.  177,  304,  316,  338.    See  also  H.  L.  Schoolcraft,  The  Capture 
of  New  Amsterdam,  in  EngUsh  Hist.  Rev.  XXII,  pp.  684^86 

•  C.  C.  1661-1668  nos.  .05,  383 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  3.8-330. 

fnr/«    ;  'f '"'^^^'  °°-  4°8-    See  also  Clarendon's  Autobiography  (Ox- 
ford, 1827)  II,  pp.  231-234.  6-  V  )  KS". 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    327 
leton    Sir  Martin  Noell,  and  Thomas  Povey.    The  fact 
that  the  same  group  of  men  were  prominent  both  in  this  Com- 
pany  and  in  the  work  of  colonial  expansion  significantly 
shows  how  closely  related  were  these  two  spheres  of  activity. 
The  English  African  Company  had  the  full  support  of  the 
govermnent,  for  not  only  were  Charles  II  and  his  immediate 
family  financiaUy  interested  in  its  fortunes,'  but  it  was  re- 
garded, not  as  a  mere  private  enteiprise,  but  as  a  quasi- 
pubhc  undertaking  whose  success  was  a  question  of  grave 
national  concern. 

This  enlarged  company  immediately  proceeded  vigor- 
ously to  engage  in  the  slave-trade,  with  the  twofold  purpose 
of  supplying  the  English  colonies  and  also  Spanish  America 
ii  the  way  of  the  latter  object  stood  serious  difficulties 
CromweU's  war  with  Spain  had  been  inherited  by  the  Res^ 
toration  govermnent,  and  desultory  fightmg  still  continued 
in  the  West  Indies.    Moreover,  apart  from  the  existence 
of  an  mformal  state  of  war,  Spam  strictly  prohibited  foreign 
vessels  from  trading  to  her  colonies.    The  Enghsh  govern- 
ment was  anxious  to  settle  the  outstanding  differences  in 
order  to  gain  admission  to  the  Spanish  colonial  trade.    But 
the  means  adopted  were  scarcely  those  best  calculated 
to  attain  this  end.    In  1662,  the  Governor  of  Jamaica,  Lord 
Wmdsor,  was  instructed  to  endeavor  to  obtain  and  preserve 
good  correspondence  with  the  Spanish  colonies ;    but    if 
then:  governors  refused  his  overtures,  he  was  somewhat 'in- 
consistently authorized  to  settle  such  trade  by  force  and 
by  such  acts  as  should  seem  most  proper  to  oblige  the 

*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  504,  508. 


i 


328 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Spaniards  to  admit  them  to  a  free  trade.^  As  the  governors 
of  Porto  Rico  and  San  Domingo  absolutely  denied  such 
intercourse,  the  Jamaica  Council  in  1662  determined  to  try 
force.2  During  the  autumn  of  that  year,  an  armed  expedi- 
tion from  Jamaica  successfully  surprised  the  city  of  Santiago 
in  Cuba;  and,  earlyin  1663,  anotherforce  captured  and  sacked 
Campeche  on  the  mainland.^  In  great  indignation  Spain 
protested  against  these  assaults,  and,  to  reheve  the  tension, 
Sir  Charles  Lyttelton,  upon  whom  the  government  of 
Jamaica  had  devolved  on  Lord  Windsor's  departure,  was 
instructed  in  the  future  to  forbid  such  xmdertakings.* 
However  effective  in  other  ways  exploits  of  this  nature 
might  be,  they  assuredly  were  not  likely  to  open  the  Spanish 
colonial  ports  to  EngHsh  traders. 

But  if  the  EngHsh  were  not  allowed  access  to  the  Spanish 
dominions,  this  proposed  trade  in  slaves  might  still  be  carried 
on,  provided  the  Spaniards  were  permitted  to  come  to  the 
English  colonies  and  to  buy  there  the  slaves  that  they 
required.  On  receipt  of  the  above-mentioned  royal  orders 
to  desist  from  further  hostihties,  Lyttelton  wrote  to  the 
Secretary  of  State  that  he  hoped  soon  to  estabhsh  trade 
relations  with  the  Spaniards,  especially  in  negro  slaves, 
which  they  could  fetch  from  nowhere  else  so  easily  as  from 
Jamaica.^    Against  such  intercourse,  however,  stood  the 

» C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  278. 

2  Ihid.  no.  355. 

3  Heathcote  MSS.  (H.M.C.  1899),  pp.  34, 35.  For  full  details,  see  C.  H. 
Haring,  The  Buccaneers  in  the  West  Indies,  pp.  104-110. 

^  Heathcote  MSS.  pp.  88,  89;  C.  C.  1 661-1668,  nos.  441-443. 
^  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  566. 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    329 

Navigation  Act,  which  expressly  prohibited  foreign  ships 
from  trading  to   the    English    colonies.     In    1662,   some 
Spaniards  had  come  to  Barbados  to  procure  negroes  and 
were  allowed  to  trade  by  the  acting  Governor  despite  the 
opposition  of  the  Council.^    In  order  to  legaHze  such  inter- 
course,  recourse  was  now  had  to  the  Crown's  disputed 
prerogative  to  dispense  with  Acts  of  Parliament.     In  1663, 
Charles  II  issued  orders  permitting  Spanish  ships  to  trade 
to  the  English  West  Indies  for  the  purpose  of  purchasing 
negroes.2    In  Barbados,  some  sUght  use  was  made  of  this 
permission,^  but  nothing  could  be  effected  in  Jamaica,  which 
was  most  conveniently  located  for  this  purpose. 
In  1664,  Sir  Thomas  Modyford,  a  prominent  colonial, 

*  Ibid.  no.  417. 

«  C.  O.  1/17,  13 ;  ibid.  389/4,  ff.  I  et  seq.;  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II  IH 
ff.  336-338  ;IP.  C.  Cal.I,  pp.  345-349;  c.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  414-417' 
425,  426.     See  also  the  instructions  issued  to  WiUoughby  in  1663      C  o' 
1/17,  49;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  360;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  489.    It  was  ordered 
that  every  negro  so  exported,  except  such  as  had  already  been  contracted 
for  in  England  with  the  African  Company,  should  pay  a  duty  of  ten  pieces 
of  eight,  of  which  each  was  reckoned  equivalent  to  four  shiUings.    In  1663 
the  African  Company  stated  that  they  had  sent  a  ship  with  160  negroes  to 
the  Spamsh  Main,  and  complained  to  WhitehaU  that  Lord  WiUoughby  had 
exacted  £320  on  these  slaves  from  their  factors  in  Barbados.    WiUoughby 
was  ordered  to  make  restitution,  and  he  was  instructed  that  the  duty  of  ten 
pieces  of  eight  should  be  levied  only  on  ^negroes  bought  upon  the  place  by 
Spamsh  subjects  or  others,  to  be  transported  into  foreign  dominions   and 
not  otherwise.'    C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  583,  585. 

'  In  September  and  October  of  1662,  and  again  in  May  of  1663  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  CouncU,  Humphrey  Walrond,  aUowed  some  Spaniards  to  trade 
receivmg  from  them  in  return  comparatively  large  sums  of  money  which  he 
agreed  to  hand  over  to  Governor  WUloughby  on  the  latter's  arrival  in  Bar- 
bados.    C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  417,  434,  569 ;  C.  0.  31/1,  f.  78. 


J 


1 


i 


330 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


was  appointed  Governor  of  Jamaica  with  instructions  to  pre- 
serve good  correspondence  with  the  Spaniards  and  to  do 
everything  to  encourage  the  trade  of  the  African  Company 
whose  mterests  he  had  represented  in  Barbados.'  Modyford 
accordingly  opened  negotiations  with  the  Governor  of  San 
Domingo.''    At  first,  favorable  answers  to  these  overtures 
were  received,'  but  ultimately  they  were  rejected.*    The 
difficulties  in  the  way  were  well  described  in  a  despatch 
of  one  of  the  ablest  of  the  Restoration  colonial  officials  to 
the  English  Secretary  of  State.    On  May  25, 1664  *  the  Pres 
ident  of  the  Jamaica  CouncU,  Thomas  Lynch,  wote  that 
It  was  not  in  the  power  of  the  Spanish  governors  to  aUow 
the  Enghsh  to  trade  in  their  colonies,  'nor  wiU  any  necessity 
or  advantage  bring  private  Spaniards  to  Jamaica,  for  we 
and  they  have  used  too  many  mutual  barbarisms  to  have  a 
sudden  correspondence.  .  .  .    Nothing  but  an  order  from 
Spam  can  gam  us  admittance  or  trade,  especiaUy  while 
they  are  so  plentifully  and  cheaply  supplied  with  negroes 
by  the  Genoese,  who  have  contracted  to  supply  them  with 
24,500  negroes  in  seven  years.' «    Even  if  this  bitter  an- 
tagonism of  the  Spaniards  -  the  inevitable  fruit  of  the 
exploits  of  the  lawless  Jamaica  buccaneers -could  have 

'  L^'  ^^'-'^^'  °°-  ^*-         '  J^-  no.  739.       » im.  no.  76.. 
IM.  no.  744.  5  j^        ' 

J  ^n  Iv  !^t  '*  '"^'^^^■■"^^  fortune  of  trade  here  none  can  guess 
but  aU  tfunk  that  the  Spaniards  so  abhor  us,  that  aU  the  commanro; 
Si^n  and  necessity  of  the  Indies  wiU  hardly  bring  them  to  an  English  port  • 
If  anything  effect  it,  negroes  are  the  likehest.'  C.  C.  i66r-i668  no  81 
For  an  account  of  theA^iento  of  these  two  Genoese,  Grilloand  LomeUn.see 
Georges  Scelle,  La  Traite  N^griere  aux  Indes  de  Castille  I,  pp.  495-549  ' 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    331 

been  overcome,  no  extensive  trade  relations  could  have  been 
established  at  this  time,  because,  as  a  result  of  the  invet- 
erate opposition  of  the  Dutch,  the  English  African  Company 
was  scarcely  able  to  obtain  enough  negroes  to  satisfy  the 
demands  of  the  English  colonies. 

The  African  Company  planned  to  procure  three  thousand 
negroes  yearly  for  the  English  colonial  market,  which  they 
offered  to  seU  in  lots,  "as  hath  been  customary,"  at  £17  the 
head.'    This  method  of  sellmg  in  lots '  was  not  adapted  to 
the  requirements  of  the  tobacco  colonies,  where  there  was 
not  sufficient  capital  avaOable  for  such  wholesale  purchases,' 
and  hence  the  relations  of  the  Company  were  at  the  outset 
confined  solely  to  the  richer  sugar  colonies,  whose  demands 
were  far  greater.    Already  in  December  of  1662,  the  chief 
of  these  colonies,  Barbados,  petitioned  the  Kmg  that  the 
trade  to  Africa  should  be  free,  or  else  that  they  might  be 
furnished  with  negroes  by  the  Royal  Company  at  the  same 

_  •  Declaration  of  the  Company  of  Royal  Adventurers  of  England  trading 
into  Afnca  (London,  1667),  pp.  8,  9.  The  buyer  had  the  option  of  paying 
these  £17  m  Spanish  pieces  of  eight,  which  were  valued  for  this  purpose  at 
four  shilhngs,  or  in  colonial  produce  -  sugar,  cotton,  and  indigo.  Twenty- 
four  hundred  pounds  of  muscovado  sugar  was  computed  as  equivalent  to 

'  In  her  novel,  Oroonoko,  or  the  Royal  Slave,  Mrs.  Aphra  Behn,  who 
had  hved  m  Surinam,  has  left  a  vivid  description  of  this  system.  Works 
(London,  1871)  V,  p.  82. 

'  In  1663,  Governor  Charles  Calvert  of  Maryland  wrote  to  Lord  Balti- 
more: "I  haue  endeauored  to  see  if  I  could  find  as  many  responsable  men 
that  would  engage  to  take  a  100  or  200  neigros  euery  yeare  from  the  Royall 
Company  at  that  rate  mentioned  in  y^  Lo>"»  letter  but  I  find  wee  are 
nott  men  of  estates  good  enough  to  vndertake  such  a  buisnesse,  but  could 
wish  wee  were  for  wee  are  naturaUy  mclin'd  to  loue  neigros  if  our  purses 
would  endure  it."    Calvert  Papers  I,  p.  249. 


mi 


t^ 


332 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


prices  as  they  had  been  by  the  private  merchants.^  Cir- 
cumstances completely  beyond  the  control  of  the  Company 
prevented  it  from  satisfying  the  colonial  demand. 

When,  in  the  summer  of  1663,  the  English  ships  arrived  on 
the  African  coast,  they  had  to  encounter  the  determined 
hostility  of  the  Dutch.    The  native  chiefs  were  bribed  not 
to  trade  with  the  English  and  even  to  attack  them.^    The 
Dutch,  so  ran  the  complaint  to  the  English  government,^ 
'have  endeavoured  to  drive  the  English  Company  from  the 
coast,  have  followed  their  ships  from  port  to  port,  and  hin- 
dered them  coming  nigh  the  shore  to  trade.  .  .  .    Had  it 
not  been  for  the  countenance  of  some  of  his  Majesty's  ships, 
to  give  the  Company  a  respect  in  the  eyes  of  the  natives  and 
preserve  their  forts,  the  Company  had  ere  this  been  stripped 
of  their  possessions  and  interest  in  Africa.'    The  English 
Envoy  to  the  United  Provinces,  Sir  George  Downing,  was 
instructed  to  demand  full  and  speedy  satisfaction  for  these 
injuries  and  also  assurances  that  they  would  not  be  repeated.* 
As  no  redress  could  be  obtained,  Captain  Robert  Holmes 
with  a  small  squadron  was  sent  by  the  government  to  Africa 
to  protect  the  English  trade.    During  the  opening  months 
of  1664,  he  captured  a  number  of  the  Dutch  Company's 

1  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  392. 

2  Ibid.  no.  507. 

'  Ibid,  no  618.  See  also  Heathcote  MSS.  (H.M.C.  1899),  pp.  146,  149, 
150. 

'  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  545.  On  Sept.  25,  1663,  the  African  Com- 
pany wrote  to  Downing  that  they  were  "extreamly  Sensible"  of  their 
obHgation  to  him  for  prosecuting  their  complaints  against  the  Dutch.  Brit. 
Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  22,920,  f.  19. 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    ^^3 

important  forts  and  inflicted  severe  damage.^  He  then 
sailed  across  the  Atlantic  to  attack  the  American  possessions 
of  the  Dutch  West  India  Company,  of  which  the  chief.  New 
Netherland,  was  destined  shortly  to  become  an  EngHsh 
colony.  During  his  absence,  the  famous  Dutch  admiral, 
De  Ruyter,  arrived  with  a  strong  force  on  the  African  coast 
and,  in  addition  to  quickly  nullifying  the  acts  of  Holmes, 
he  captured  with  one  exception  all  the  Enghsh  posts  as  well.^ 
Thus  events  were  gradually  bringing  about  another  armed 
struggle  between  England  and  the  United  Provinces.  In 
reality  a  state  of  war  existed  aheady  in  1664,  but,  pending 
abortive  negotiations  for  a  peaceful  solution,  it  was  not 
declared  until  the  following  year. 

This  war  was  only  one  manifestation  of  the  deep-seated 
economic  rivahy  between  the  EngHsh  and  Dutch  nations 
and,  fundamentally,  it  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Dutch 
blocked  many  of  the  paths  over  which  England  had  to  pass 
in  order  to  attain  her  full  economic  development.  More 
specifically,  the  immediate  cause  of  the  war  was  the  deter- 
mination of  the  United  Provinces  to  maintain  inviolate 
their  monopoly  of  the  slave-trade  and  to  prevent  the  English 
from  establishing  themselves  in  West  Africa.^ 

»  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  646,  697,  737,  829.  Under  date  of  Sept.  29, 1664, 
Pepys  recorded:  "Fresh  news  come  of  our  beating  the  Dutch  at  Guinny 
quite  out  of  all  their  castles  ahnost,  which  will  make  them  quite  mad  here 
at  home  sure.  And  Sir  G.  Cartaret  did  teU  me,  that  the  King  do  joy  mightily 
at  it." 

2  Lefevre  Pontahs,  John  de  Witt  I,  p.  316. 

3  On  Dutch  interference  with  England's  African  and  East  Indian  trades, 
see  Sir  George  Downing,  A  Reply  (London,  1665),  pp.  19,  21,  42,  43 ;  and 
A  Catalogue  of  the  Damages  for  which  the  English  demand  Reparation 


1 


f 


I  i 


t  1 


334 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Finally  in  1667,  after  some  memorable  fighting,  famous  in 
the  annals  of  naval  warfare,  peace  was  concluded  at  Breda 
on  the  general  basis  of  each  power  retaining  its  conquests. 
Thus,  m  America,  Lord  Willoughby's  colony  of  Surinam  was 
ceded  to  the  Dutch  and  New  Netherland  became  part  of 
the  EngHsh  Empire.  In  West  Africa,  the  English  lost 
Cormantine,  but  instead  gained  Cape  Coast  Castle.  Far 
more  important,  however,  was  the  Dutch  renunciation  of 
their  exclusive  claims  in  this  region.  In  the  future,  the  Eng- 
lish Company  could  pursue  its  course  unhampered  by  the 
continuous  prospect  of  violent  opposition  from  the  Dutch.  ^ 
Just  as  the  first  Dutch  war  under  Cromwell  had  put  an  end 
to  the  exclusive  claims  of  that  trading  nation  in  the  Far  East 
and  allowed  England  to  develop  her  East  Indian  trade,^ 
so  this  second  armed  conflict  opened  up  the  imoccupied 
points  of  the  West  African  coast  to  the  English  merchants. 

(London,  1664).  From  Paris,  April  ^,  1664,  Lord  HoUes,  the  EngKsh  Am- 
bassador, wrote  to  Downing :  "I  looke  for  lesse  kindnes  from  your  Minheers 
that  you  deale  with,  who  vse  vs  very  coursely  euery  where  as  all  my  intelli- 
gence from  England  tells  me,  refusing  vs  y®  restitution  of  Poleron,  &  deny- 
ing vs  trading  in  all  y«  coast  of  Guinee  (w*'**  can  Signify  nothing  else  but 
that  they  meane  to  quarrell  w*^  vs)  &  vpon  all  occasions  falling  foule  vpon 
y^  English."    Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  22,920,  f.  35. 

1  The  ninth  clause  of  the  treaty  provided  that  "whereas  in  countries 
far  remote,  as  in  Africa  and  America,  especially  in  Guinea,  certain  protesta- 
tions and  declarations,  and  other  writings  of  that  land,  prejudicial  to  the 
liberty  of  trade  and  navigation,  have  been  emitted  and  published  on  either 
side  by  the  governors  and  officers  in  the  name  of  their  superiors,"  it  is  agreed 
that  all  the  aforesaid  claims  shall  be  henceforth  null  and  void.  Chahners, 
A  Collection  of  Treaties  (London,  1790),  p.  136;  Dumont,  Corps  Universel 
Diplomatique  (Amsterdam,  1731)  VII,  Part  I,  p.  45. 

2  Beer,  Cromwell's  Policy  in  its  Economic  Aspects,  m  Political  Science 
Quarterly,  Vols.  XVI,  XVH. 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    335 

The  English  Company  was,  however,  in  no  condition  to 
avail  itself  of  this  opportunity.    It  had  suffered  heavy  losses 
during  the  war  and  the  preliminary  hostilities  in  West  Africa.^ 
Its  original  capital  of  £122,000  had  almost  entirely  dis- 
appeared, and  its  credit  was  at  so  low  an  ebb  that  loans  to 
secure  the  indispensable  fresh  resources   could  not  be  ne- 
gotiated.2    Moreover,  it  had  become  involved  in  a  serious 
controversy  with  the  chief  EngHsh  slave-holding  colony, 
Barbados,  which  complained  bitterly  of  the  high  prices  and 
the  inadequate  number  of  slaves  shipped  there.    In  1668,^ 
Governor  WiUoughby  wrote  to  Charles  II  that  the  colony 
would  be  ruined  unless  the  trade  to  Africa  were  made  free, 
so  that  they  might  be  supplied  as  plentifuUy  as  formerly. 
Slaves,  he  claimed,  were  so  excessively  dear  and  scarce  that 
the  poor  planters  would  be  forced  to  emigrate  to  foreign 
colonies  in  order  to  gain  a  livelihood.^    In  the  same  year, 
formal  charges  against  the  Company  were  brought  before 
the  House  of  Commons,  in  the  form  of  a  petition  signed  by 
a  number  of  men,  among  whom  were  Sir  Paul  Painter  and 
Ferdinando  Gorges,  who  were  prominently  identified  with 
Barbados.^ 

To  the  first  charge  that  formerly,  under  free  trade,  the 
colonies  were  well  and  cheaply  supplied,  and  that  forts  in 

* 

*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  902,  903. 

*  W.  R.  Scott,  op.  cit.  II,  p.  18. 

3  C.  O.  1/21,  89;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1539, 

*  At  the  same  time,  the  Barbados  Assembly  petitioned  the  King  to  the 
same  effect.    Ihid.  no.  1563. 

^  The  charges  and  replies  are  in  the  Answer  of  the  Company  of  Royal 
Adventurers  of  England  trading  into  Africa,  pubHshed  in  1667. 


33^ 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


% 


li 


T 


West  Africa  were  not  necessary,  the  Company  replied  that 
without  such  forts  England  would  lose  the  African  trade, 
and  the  merchants  would  be  at  the  mercy  of  every  enemy; 
and  further,  that  the  colonies  had  never  been  more  cheaply 
and  plentifully  suppHed  than  immediately  prior  to  the  Dutch 
war.      Secondly,  it  was  charged  that  the  Company  was  in 
bad  credit  and  heavily  in  debt,  and  being  thus  unable  to 
find  the  capital  required  for  its  trade,  had  "lately  taken  up 
an  unknown  way  of  granting  their  Licences  to  others  of  his 
Majesties  good  Subjects  to  fetch  Negroes  from  Guiny,  exact- 
ing for  the  same  two,  three,  four  and  five  Hundred  pounds  a 
Ship/'    In  reply,  the  Company  admitted  that  it  was  greatly 
in  debt  as  a  result  of  the  heavy  losses  inflicted  upon  it  by 
the  Dutch,  but  pointed  out  that  on  the  other  hand  the  colo- 
nies owed  it  £90,000.    Furthermore,  they  said  that  they  had 
been  forced  to  adopt  the  licensing  system  in  order  that  the 
colonies  might  be  supplied,  and  that  the  fees  so  obtained 
were  devoted  to  the  maintenance  of  the  forts.  ^    The  third 
charge  was  that  the  Company  had  contracted  to  furnish 
thousands  of  negroes  yearly  to  the  Spanish  colonies,  while 
the  EngUsh  colonies  were  not  only  poorly  supplied,  but  in 
addition  had  to  suffer  from  the  competition  of  the  products 
raised  by  this  labor  in  Spanish  America.    The  Company 
admitted  the  Spanish  contract;  otherwise,  they  said,  the 
Dutch  would  have  secured  it,  but  stated  that  never  in  any 
year  had  more  than  1200  negroes  been  delivered  on  its 

1  These  fees,  they  said,  were  "3/.  per  Ton,  or  10  per  Cent  on  the  Car  go  y 
which  is  less  then  the  Company  pays  in  proportion  upon  their  whole  Trade" 
towards  the  maintenance  of  the  forts. 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    337 

account,  whOe  at  the  same  time  the  English  colonies  had  been 
furnished  by  them  with  over  6000  slaves  in  a  single  year. 
Further,  they  asserted  that  the  colonies  themselves  sold 
many  negroes  to  the  Spaniards,  and  that  such  slaves  were 
employed  in  the  mines  and  in  domestic  service,  and  hence 
did  not  raise  products  competing  with  those  of  the  English 
colonies.     FinaUy,  it  was  charged  that  the  negroes  were 
formerly  sold  in  the  colonies  at  from  £12  to  £16  a  head,"  and 
that  rf  late  the  price  had  been  £25  and  had  even  risen  to 
£30.'    In  reply,  the  Company  stated  that  before  they  had 
received  a  charter  the  average  price  of  negroes  in  the  colonies 
was  £17  or  2400  pounds  of  sugar,  and  that  at  the  outset  they 
had  instructed  their  agents  to  seU  at  this  figure,'  but  that  on 
account  of  the  Dutch  war  the  price  had  inevitably  risen, 
and  might  recently  have  been  as  high  as  £30.* 

Early  in  1668,  the  Secretary  of  the  Company,  Sir  EUis 
Leighton,  also  issued  a  formal  answer  to  the  complaints 
that  had  come  directly  from  the  colony.*  He  especiaUy 
emphasized  the  absolute  necessity  of  carrying  on  this  trade 

•  Or  1600  to  1800  lbs.  of  sugar. 

'It  was  also  claimed  that  the  best  negroes  were  at  the  same  time  sold  to 
the  Spaniards  for  £18.  The  Company,  however,  denied  that  the  best  negroes 
were  dehvered  to  the  Spaniards  and  only  the  "refuse"  ones  sold  to  the  Eng- 
lish  colonies.  ^ 

'''  The  Company  alwayes  did  order  them  to  be  sold  in  Lotts  according 
to  the  custome  of  the  Countrey." 

'  Before  the  Restoration,  the  best  male  slaves  were  sold  in  Barbados  for 
i3o,  and  the  female  for  £25  to  £27.  Richard  Ligon,  A  True  and  Exact 
History  of  Barbados  (London,  1657),  p.  46.  Already  in  1661,  Barbados 
complamed  of  the  great  rise  in  the  price  of  negroes.     C.  C.  1661-1668  no  85 

'  C.  O.  1/22,  21 ;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1680. 


!l*l 


z 


^^  \ 


\'\ 


■'  f  ii 


'i      / 


\ 


338 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


by  means  of  a  privileged  company,  saying  sarcastically  that 
'open  markets  and  free  trade  are  best  for  those  that  desire 
them  is  certain,  and  so  it  is  to  buy  cheap  and  sell  dear,  and 
most  of  all  to  have  commodities  for  nothing,  and  if  all  his 
Majesty's  dominions  and  plantations  were  made  only  for 
Barbadoes  it  might  be  expedient ;  but  since  it  is  conceived 
that  his  Majesty  will  have  regard  to  what  may  preserve 
the  trade  of  the  nation,  and  not  only  to  what  will  gratify 
Barbadoes,  they  think  their  desire  of  free  trade  will  prove  as 
impracticable  and  pernicious  to  themselves  as  destructive  to 
all  other  public  interests. '  Leigh  ton  then  carried  the  war  into 
the  enemy's  camp,  stating  that  Barbados  was  greatly  in  debt 
to  the  Company,  and  praying  the  Eang  to  write  to  the  Gov- 
ernor to  assist  them  in  recovering  these  outstanding  sums. 

During  the  following  year  Barbados  renewed  its  com- 
plaints, but  the  goveroment  decided  not  to  allow  trading 
in  violation  of  the  Company's  charter.  ^  The  colony's  case 
had  been  greatly  prejudiced  by  the  fact  that  the  financial 
difficulties  of  the  Company  were  in  part  due  to  its  inability 
effectively  to  collect  its  outstanding  debts  in  Barbados 
imder  the  existing  local  laws.  Already  in  1663,  before 
Lord  Willoughby  had  assumed  the  government  of  the 
colony,  the  local  authorities  had  issued  an  order  "obstruct- 
ing all  proceedings  at  law  against  any  planters  there  for 
their  debts."  2  in  response  to  some  complaints  of  the  mer- 
chants and  traders,^  the  Council  for  Foreign  Plantations  in- 

*  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  518-520. 

*  Ibid.  p.  354;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  459. 

*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  462. 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    ^^9 
vestigated  the  matter  and  reported  that  this  order  was 
without  justification,  as  there  was  an  exceUent  prospect  for 
a  plentiful  crop,  and  that  there  was  good  cause  to  suspect 
that  "the  said  President  and  some  of  the  CounciU  being 
deeply  indebted  did  take  hold  of  the  said  Petition  (praying 
for  the  measure  in  question)  asweU  to  avoid  the  payment 
of  their  owne  debts  as  to  gratify  the  Petitioners."    They 
added  that  this  order  for  a  stay  in  proceedings  for  the 
recovery  of  debts  was  unprecedented  and  of  so  evU  a  con- 
sequence that,  if  not  immediately  prevented,  it  would  tend 
to  the  rum  not  only  of  Barbados,  but  of  aU  the  other  colonies 
as  weU;  and  advised  Charles  II  to  rescind  it  and  to  forbid 
such  orders  in  the  future.'    Accordingly,  Lord  Willoughby 
was  directed  to  give  effectual  and  speedy  redress  to  this 
gnevance;^  but  as  he  had  to  act  with  the  advice  of  the  mem- 
bers of  his  Councn  who,  being  planters,  "carry  it  in  favour 
of  their  brethren,"  this  instruction  could  not   be  fully 
executed.'    In  1664,  the  African  Company  stated  in  a  peti- 
tion that  they  had  supphed  Barbados  HberaUy  with  slaves 
and  had  given  long  credits  to  the  planters  who  owed  them 
£40,000,  yet  they  were  very  much  abused  "by  the  intoUer- 
able  delayes  of  Payment  amongst  the  most  of  the  Planters 
agamst  which  the  present  Form  of  Judiciary  proceedings  in' 
that  Island  afford  no  Remedy,  but  what  is  worse  than  the 
disease."  ^ 

This  was  merely  an  instance  of  the  friction  that  inevi- 

^  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  352-354;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  470 

'^FCci  J  ''''''.      .  '  C.  C.  X66X-X668,  no.  689. 

1*.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  381-383.  ^ 


I 


m 


340 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


ki 


» 


tably  exists  between  aU  debtor  and  creditor  communities, 
and  which  played  an  important  part  in  the  politics  of  the 
old    Empire.    Without    any    conscious    moral    turpitude, 
there  was  a  constant  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  colonial 
planters  to  scale  down  their  debts  by  inequitable  currency 
and  bankruptcy  legislation.    Against  such  measures  the  Eng- 
lish merchants  had  to  protect  themselves  as  best  they  could. 
Accordingly,  when  the  African  Company  m  1668  met  the 
demands  of  Barbados  and  agreed  to  seU  negroes  at  the  old 
price  of  £17,  it  stipulated  that  good  security  had  to  be  given 
for  their  payment. »     No  satisfactory  arrangement  could, 
however,  be  made,  nor  would  Barbados  amend  its  law  for 
the  recovery  of  debts.     In  reply  to  the  orders  of  the  English 
government  that  the  lands,  as  weU  as  the  goods,  of  a  de- 
faulting debtor  should  be  Uable,  the  Speaker  of  the  Assembly 
wrote  in  1670^  that  their  laws  were  in  every  way  as  effectual 
for  the  recovery  of  debts  as  those  of  England,  and  that  they 
had  much  more  reason  to  complain  than  had  the  Company, 
in  that  it  had  not  compUed  with  its  proclamation  to  fur- 
nish negroes  at  £17,  but  had  sold  the  best  to  the  Spaniards, 
and  the  refuse  to  them  at  nearly  double  this  figure.' 

'  C.  O.  1/22,  22 ;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1681. 
'  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  133,  134. 

'  In  1669,  the  Royal  African  Company  complained  "that  the  Creditors 
of  the  said  Company  living  in  Barbados  refuse  to  pay  their  Debts,  and  that 
the  imqmty  of  proceedings,  and  the  ffl  constitution  of  the  Lawes  in  that 
Island  IS  soe  great,  that  as  these  Lawes  have  already  ruyned  the  said  Com- 
pany, so  m  a  UtUe  time  they  wiU  infallibly  ruyne  the  Inhabitants  themselves  " 
After  a  hearing  of  the  interested  parties,  the  Privy  Council  ordered  that 
henceforth  lands,  as  well  as  goods,  in  Barbados  should  be  liable  to  be  sold  by 
an  out  Cry"  for  debts,  and  that  the  Governor  should  cause  a  law  to  this 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    34X 

In  the  meanwhile  the  financial  condition  of  the  Company 
had  been  gomg  from  bad  to  worse,  and  in  X67X  bankruptcy 
^s  mmnnent     The  English  Exchequer  itself  was  on  the 

burden  of         r  "'  "'''  "^'^  ^^°'  ^'^  ''''''^'^' 
burden  of  provadmg  and  maintaining  the  forts  in  West 

Afnca  so  that  this  commerce  might  be  open  to  all.    Hence 
agam,  the  only  alternative  to  losing  the  trade  entirely  was 

Ltal  T^"^"^^'^  «^  ^^  --Ivent  Company  and  the 
Wat:on  of  a  new  one  with  ample  capital  to  continue  its 
work.  It  was  proposed  that  the  stockholders  of  the  old 
Company,  whose  capital  had  amounted  to  £132,000,  should 
reeve  ten  per  cent  in  new  stock,  while  the  creditors  holdtg 
cla  ms  amounting  to  £57,000  were  offered  forty  per  cent  oi 
whach  the  bulk  was  in  cash.    The  plan  went'hroughld 

a  cli;  ?r'  ^''^^'^  ^^°^P^">^  -^  incorporated  ;^ti. 
a  captal  of  £100,000,  of  which  £35,000  was  applied  to 

sat:sfymg  the  clahns  of  the  stockholders  and  credit!  of  the 

od  Company.^    Among  the  nmnerous  patentees  were  the 

statesnxen,  officials,  men  of  affairs,  and  merchants  interested 

m  large  colomal  and  commercial  enterprises,  such  as  the 

Duke   of   York,  Prmce   Rupert,   Shaftesbury,  Arhngton, 

effect  to  be  passed  by  the  Barbados  legislature     P  P  r.i  t 

£.^  ri"?  "rr  ~°*-  * -» .^iS"-.  "i!:v;s 


m 


17 


342 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


F,l 


t 


I 


Williamson,  Berkeley,  Sir  Peter  CoUeton,  Thomas  Povey, 
Ferdinando  Gorges  and  Josiah  CMd.  To  them,  as  to 
their  predecessors,  was  granted  the  exclusive  right  to  trade 
in  Africa  between  Sallee  and  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope.^ 

The  new  Company  proceeded  vigorously  to  engage  in 
the  African  trade.    For  nearly  two  years  after  the  issue 
of  the  charter  its  activities  were  hampered  by  the  war  with 
the  Dutch  and  the  embargoes  laid  in  consequence  thereof, 
yet  the  Company  despatched  during  this  period  seven  ships 
with  soldiers  and  ammunition  to  preserve  the  forts  in  Africa 
and  to  carry  negroes  thence  to  America.     In  1674,  fifteen 
ships  were  sent  and  in  1675,  twenty.^    Acting  energeticaUy 
and  skilfully,  the  Company  established  itself  firmly  at  various 
points  in  West  Africa,  especiaUy  on 'the  Gold  Coast  and  on 
the  Gambia,  and  by  means  of  its  numerous  forts  and  trading 
stations  was  able  to  secure  an  ever  increasing  share  of  the 
trade  with  that  region.     English  manufactures  were  bar- 
tered for  the  native  produce  —  gold,  ivory,  redwood,  wax  — 
but  especially  for  the  slaves  demanded  by  the  planters  of 
the  New  World.^    Thanks  to  the  settlement  of  the  diffi- 
culties with  the  Dutch,  the  financial  history  of  the  new  Com- 
pany differed  radically  from  that  of  its  predecessor.    Up  to 
the  Revolution  of  1688/9,  the  stockholders  had  every  reason 
to  be  satisfied  with  the  returns  on  their  investment.    From 

»  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  409-412;  Va.  Hist.  Soc.  CoU.  New  Series  VI, 
PP-  37-53. 

2  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  388. 

'  African  Co.  Papers  10,  ff.  i,  2.  The  average  yearly  exports  from  Eng- 
land to  Africa  during  the  nine  years  1680  to  1688  were  £70,000.  Report  of 
the  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council  (London,  1789)  II,  Part  IV,  no.  5. 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND   THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    343 

1676  to  1688  high  dividends  were  paid  at  irregular  intervals  ; 
m  both  1676  and  1677,  the  stockholders  received  about 
twenty-two  per  cent,  whHe  the  average  rate  annually  for  the 
entire  period  was  roughly  eight  per  cent.^  This  success  was 
attained  despite  obstacles  encountered  in  many  quarters 
Abuses  were  committed  by  the  Company's  servants,  diffi- 
culties with  the  colonies  were  a  serious  handicap,  and 
thirdly,  its  monopoly  was  invaded  by  private  traders. 

The  Company's  affairs  in  Africa  and  in  the  colonies  were 
necessarily  managed  by  agents  and  servants,  upon  whose 
honesty  depended  the  success  of  the  enterprise.    In  those 
days  of  infrequent  and  slow  communications  efficient  con- 
trol from  so  distant  a  centre  as  London  was  impossible,  and 
ample  opportunity  was  afforded  for  unscrupulous  actions. 
As  a  result,  the  Company  suffered,  and  also  the  colonies 
since  the  cost  of  their  indispensable  labor  was  thereby 
raised.     One  great  item  of  loss  was  the  terrific  mortality  of 
the  negroes  during  their  transportation  from  Africa  to  the 
West  Indies,^  which  at  this  time  averaged  roughly  twenty 
per  cent.3    Obviously,  since  the  slaves  were  very  valuable,  it 

J  Scott,  op.  cit.  n,  pp.  2,2,^  34.    Despite  this,  the  Company  stated  in  168^  • 
We  are  envied  for  our  advantages,  yet  our  members  have  not  had  so  much 
as  interest  on  their  money,  though  no  stock  has  been  managed  with  more 
faithfuhiess  and  care.*    C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  526. 

'  This  was  not  a  peculiarity  of  the  Enghsh  trade.    In  1670,  La  Justice. 
saihng  for  the  French  West  Indies  with  434  negroes,  arrived  with  about  310 
and  La  Concorde  at  the  same  time  brought  over  safely  only  443  out  of 
503.    S.  L.  Mims,  Colbert's  West  India  PoUcy,  pp.  169-171,  286. 

'  In  1679,  the  Royal  African  Company  asserted  that  25  per  cent  was  the 
usual  mortaUty,  but  as  this  statement  was  made  in  order  to  prove  that  the 
pnce  of  negroes  sold  by  them  in  Jamaica  could  not  be  lowered,  it  cannot  be 


^.  fi 


I.  I'l 

m 


344 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


was  in  the  interest  of  the  Company  that  this  mortality 
should  be  as  low  as  possible ;  their  original  cost  in  Africa 
was  considerable,  the  expenses  of  their  transportation  were 
high,  and  they  commanded  a  big  price  in  the  colonies. 
Thus,  apart  from  any  hmnanitarian  considerations,  mere 
self-interest  would  have  dictated  the  best  possible  treatment. 
Unfortunately,  but  little  was  understood  of  even  rudimen- 
tary hygiene;  and,  furthermore,  in  some  instances  virulent 
diseases  attacked  the  ships  and  literally  converted  them  into 
charnel-houses.^     In  other  cases,  the  negroes  proved  refrac- 

accepted  without  some  question.  C.  O.  391/3,  ff.  228  et  seq.  In  1707  was 
prepared  a  report  by  the  Royal  African  Company  for  the  Board  of  Trade, 
showing  that,  in  the  nine  years  from  1680  to  1688,  60,783  negroes  were 
shipped  from  Africa,  of  which  46,396  were  delivered  in  Barbados,  Jamaica, 
and  the  Leeward  Islands.  What  became  of  the  other  14,387  is  not  stated. 
C.  O.  388/10,  H  108.  In  1789  was  published  a  governmental  report  on  the 
slave-trade,  giving  the  same  figures  and  stating  that  they  were  derived  from 

the  Board  of  Trade's  books,  but 
further  adding  that  the  14,387  un- 
accounted for  were  lost  in  transpor- 
tation. Report  of  the  Committee 
of  the  Privy  Council  (London, 
1789)  II,  Part  IV,  no.  5. 

1  In  a  letter  dated  Dec.  2,  1678, 
the  Company's  agents  in  Barba- 
dos reported  the  arrival  of  the 
Martha  with  385  of  the  447  ne- 
groes embarked  in  Africa,  and  also 
that  of  the  Arthur  with  329  out  of 
417  taken  on  at  Arda,  of  whom 
many  were  small  and  some  weak, 
old,  and  very  sickly.  African  Co. 
Papers  i,  ff.  6,  7.  In  1681,  a  ves- 
sel arrived  in  Barbados  with  130 
out  of  the  original    232   negroes. 


Number  or 

Number 

Vessel's  Name 

Negroes 

Originaixy 

Arrived 

Embarked 

Golden  Fortune 

226 

258 

Mary 

474 

507 

Delight 

169 

171 

Robert 

235 

350 

Bonadventure 

256 

320 

Unity 

180 

200 

Prosperous 

580 

610 

Return 

170 

330 

Daniel 

428 

530 

Unity 

306 

397 

Total 

3024 

3673 

African  Co.  Papers  16  passim. 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    345 

tory  and  rebellious,  and  as  the  small  white  crew  could  not 
cope  with  them  if  at  liberty,  they  were  kept  in  confinement 
and  weighed  down  with  irons.  ^  Such  factors  would  not, 
however,  completely  account  for  this  great  mortality.  The 
horrors  of  the  middle  passage  were  greatly  accentuated  by 
an  abuse  that  was  the  bane  of  nearly  all  the  great  com- 
mercial companies,  namely,  the  unauthorized  private  trading 
of  their  employees.  It  appears  that  at  times  the  captains 
of  the  slave-ships  bought  negroes  for  their  own  account,  and 
callously  overcrowded  their  ships  to  the  grave  detriment  of 
their  human  cargo's  health.^    Of  one  such  vessel,  which  had 

Ibid.  f.  119.  The  list  here  printed  of  slave-ships  arriving  in  Barbados  be- 
tween Jan.  27,  1683,  and  April  21,  1684,  shows  that  m  about  one-half  of 
these  ships  the  mortahty  was  comparatively  low,  about  7  per  cent,  while 
in  the  others  it  averaged  about  28  per  cent. 

1  In  1680,  a  vessel  arrived  in  Barbados  with  180  out  of  the  original  213. 
The  agents  reported  that  they  conceived  "many  of  the  men  are  much  the 
worse  for  being  soe  loaded  with  Irons  as  they  have  bm  all  the  Voyage," 
because  they  were  unruly  and  the  captain  feared  an  uprising.  African  Co. 
Papers  i,  f.  62.  The  horrors  of  the  middle  passage  were  graphically  de- 
scribed by  a  contemporary  writer  who  said :  "  For  no  sooner  are  they  arrived 
at  the  Sea-side,  but  they  are  sold  like  Beasts  to  the  Merchant,  who  glad  of 
the  booty  puts  us  aboard  the  Ships,  claps  us  under  Deck,  and  binds  us  in 
Chains  and  Fetters,  and  thrusts  us  into  the  dark  noisom  Hold,  so  many 
and  so  close  together,  that  we  can  hardly  breathe,  there  are  we  in  the  hot- 
test of  Summer,  and  under  that  scorching  Climate  without  any  of  the  sweet 
Influences  of  the  Air,  or  briezing  Gale  to  refresh  us,  suffocated,  stewed,  and 
parboyled  altogether  in  a  Crowd,  till  we  ahnost  rot  each  other  and  our- 
selves." Philotheos  Physiologus,  Friendly  Advice  to  the  Gentlemen 
Planters  of  the  East  and  West  Indies  (1684),  Part  H,  pp.  82,  83. 

2  At  a  later  date,  it  was  said :  "The  covetnous  of  most  Commanders  to 
Carry  many  to  advance  their  Freight  (for  they  are  generally  Paid  by  the 
Head)  as  it  hath  occasioned  unanswerable  abuses ;  so  the  death  of  abundance 
which  should  be  prevented  if  possible."  John  Pollexfen,  A  Discourse  of 
Trade  (London,  1697),  p.  130. 


k  \ 


346 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


«l 


arrived  in  Barbados  in  1679,  the  agents  there  wrote  to  the 
Company  that  its  appalling  condition  was  due  to  such  over- 
crowding, and  that  they  presumed  that  those  owning  these 
negroes  had  not  been  deterred  by  any  fear  of  the  conse- 
quences, because  they  had  resolved,  "if  soe  many  remained 
a  Live  in  y*^  Ship  as  they  pretended  to,  they  would  have  no 
Loss,  y''  Living  being  stHl  theirs,  &  y'  Dead  the  Comp^^"  ^ 
According  to  Sir  William  Wilson  Hunter,  the  annals  of  the 
East  India  Company  afiFord  no  counterpart  of  the  sixteenth 
century  "Portuguese  commodore  of  two  royal  ships,  who 
lost  one  by  overioading  it  with  a  double  cargo,  while  he 
freighted  the  other  with  his  own  goods."  2    xhe  African 
Company  can  supply  this  undesired  deficiency,  for  here 
certainly  is  a  close,  and  if  anything  a  more  ghastly,  parallel. 
In  addition,  the  Royal  African  Company  was  handicapped 
by  continuous  disputes  with  the  colonies.     A  few  weeks  after 
its  incorporation,  in  December  of  1672,  a  declaration  was 
issued  by  the  Duke  of  York,  as  Governor  of  the  Company, 
oflFering  to  contract  in  London  for  the  deHvery  of  negroes 
in  the  colonies  at  prices  in  lots,  ranging  from  £15  for  Bar- 
bados to  £18  for  Virginia,  and  reserving  to  itself  the  right  to 
sell  at  the  best  price  obtainable  in  the  colonies  those  negroes 

»  Barbados,  June  10,  1679,  Edwyn  Stede  and  Stephen  Gascoigne  to  the 
Royal  African  Company.  Regarding  this  ship's  condition,  they  wrote :  "It 
doth  most  certainly  appeare  to  us  the  great  mortaHty  of  negroes  that  was 
in  yt  ship  from  CaUabar  hither  &  here  was  occasioned  by  y«  ships  being 
crowded  &  pestred  w«»  y«  supernumerary  Negroes  taken  into  y*  ship,  not 
having  roome  to  stow  or  cleane  them,  for  wee  never  saw  soe  nasty  foule  and 
stincking  Ship  in  our  Lives."  African  Co.  Papers  i,  f.  23.  On  this  private 
trade,  see  also  ibid,,  ff.  ^8,  43. 

2  Hunter,  History  of  British  India  H,  p.  167. 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    347 

for  which  no  contract  had  been  made  prior  to  their  arrival.  ^ 
Immediate  cash  payment  was  not  demanded,  but  liberal 
terms  were  allowed  to  purchasers.^    As  Barbados  had  not 
as  yet  comphed  with  the  royal  orders  to  amend  its  unsatis- 
factory debtor  law,  the  Company  inherited  its  predecessor's 
controversy  with  the  colony  on  this  score.    This  friction 
was  further  intensified  by  the  fact  that,  during  the  first 
two  years  of  the  Company's  existence,  England  was  at  war 
with  the  United  Provinces  and,  consequently,  considerable 
difiiculty  was  experienced  in  supplying  the  colonial  demand. 
The  EngHsh  government  had  several  times  already  in- 
structed Barbados  to  amend  its  debtor  laws,^  and  in  1673, 
when  Sir  Jonathan  Atkins  was  appointed  Governor,  these 
orders  were  renewed.    He  was  instructed  to  endeavor  to 
get  the  Assembly  to  pass  a  satisfactory  law  and  to  acquaint 
it,  'how  sensible  his  Majesty  is,  what  great  prejudices  are 
brought  upon  the  trade  of  that  island  by  the  difiiculty  men 
find  in  recovering  their  just  debts.'  *    Accordingly,  when  the 
Barbados  Assembly  met  late  in  1674,  Atkins  laid  stress  on 
'the  great  clamour  in  England  of  the  injustice  of  the  Island 

» The  negroes  were  to  be  between  the  ages  of  12  and  40,  and  the  price 
was  fixed  at  £15  for  Barbados,  at  £16  for  the  Leeward  Islands,  at  £17  for 
Jamaica,  and  £18  for  Virginia.  C.  0. 1/29, 60 ;  ibid.  1/60, 34 ;  C.  C.  1669- 
1674,  p.  444. 

2  The  slaves  contracted  for  in  London  were  to  be  paid  for  in  three  equal 
instahnents,  respectively  two,  four,  and  six  months  after  delivery. 

» In  1671  and  1672,  the  Governor  was  instructed  to  assist  with  the  ut- 
most care  the  agents  of  the  Company  in  recovering  its  just  debts.  P.  C. 
Cal.  I,  pp.  572-574;  S.  P.  Dom.  Charles  II,  Entry  Book  31,  ff.  92,  93  j 
C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  363,  364. 

^  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  543. 


!! 


348 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


to  their  creditors/  and  recommended  that  their  antiquated 
and  inequitable  legal  methods  be  thoroughly  overhauled.^ 
To  some  extent  this  unquestionable  grievance  —  so  staunch 
a  friend  of  the  colony  as  was  Governor  Atkins  termed  it 
a  'great  scandal'  —  was  redressed  by  the  Assembly.^  In  its 
turn  then,  the  colony  proceeded  to  complain  of  the  inadequate 
supply  of  negroes  furnished  by  the  Royal  African  Company.^ 
Their  prosperity,  they  said,  depended  upon  a  plentiful 
supply,  which  was  not  forthcoming,  and  in  addition  the 
prices  demanded  were  claimed  to  be  excessive.^ 

On  being  summoned  by  the  Lords  of  Trade  to  answer  these 
complaints,^  the  African  Company  stated «  that  during  the 
first  two  years  after  their  incorporation,  though  much  ob- 
structed by  the  Dutch  war,  they  had  sent  four  ships  with 
slaves  to  Barbados,  and  that,  in  1674,  six  of  their  vessels 
had  deUvered  about  2000  negroes  in  that  colony,  while  3000 

1  FuU  information  about  these  legal  detaOs  may  be  found  in  the  extant 
records.  See  especially  C.  C.  1669-1674,  nos.  1183,  1191.  A  careful 
summary  is  available  in  E.  D.  CoUins's  Studies  in  the  Colonial  PoHcy  of 
England,  1672-1680,  in  Am.  Hist.  Assoc.  Report  1900,  pp.  159-162. 

^  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  166-168,  174,  180,  193  ;    C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  7. 
«  C.  O.  31/2,  fif.  165,  172,  177-182,  183;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  193,  206- 
208,  210;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  6,  7. 

*  At  this  time,  in  1675,  the  price  of  negroes  in  Barbados  was  claimed  to 
be  £20  to  £22,  which  they  said  they  could  not  afford  to  pay,  "our  Lands 
being  wome  out,  ou'"  Commodities  being  lowe  &  Great  Dutyes  vpon  them." 
Regarding  the  offer  of  the  Company  to  furnish  negroes  in  lots  at  £15,  they 
stated  that  it  was  less  advantageous  than  to  pay  £20  to  £22  for  good  negroes. 
C.  O.  31/2,  ff.  178,  179.  On  Sept  20,  1675,  Governor  Lord  Vaughan 
of  Jamaica  wrote  to  Secretary  WiUiamson  that  the  Company  had  of  late 
suppUed  them  plentifully,  but  at  extraordinary  rates,  no  negroes  being 
sold  under  £22  for  ready  money.     C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  192. 

'Ibid.p.s7s.  ^  Ibid.  pp.  s87,3SS. 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    349 

had  been  ordered  sent  in  1675.     As  regards  the  aUegation 
that  they  had  sold  their  negroes  for  £20  to  £22,  they 
asserted  that  an  examination  of  their  books  would  show  that 
the  seUing  price  averaged  about  £15.1    The  Lords  of  Trade 
then  questioned  the  official  representative  of  the  colony 
in   England,  Colonel  Thornborough,   who  admitted   that 
Barbados  was  then  and  had  for  some  time  been  plentifully 
supplied,  and  that  the  complaint  referred  to  the  time  when 
the  Dutch  war  had  created  a  scarcity.^     Accordingly,  a 
severe  letter  of  censure  was  sent  to  Governor  Atkins, 'in 
whom  the  colony  had  found  a  zealous  advocate,  for  continu- 
ing these  complaints  after  their  cause  had  been  removed.^ 

But  in  1679  the  Barbados  Assembly  again  instructed  Sir 
Peter  CoUeton  and  Colonel  Henry  Drax  of  the  Committee 

^  The  Company  further  said  that  the  colony  already  owed  them  £25  000 
and  would  owe  £70,000  more  for  the  3000  negroes  sent  in  1675 

hl^'  M  l^V^l^'  ^'  '^^'  ^''^''^  ^^'^^  ^^^  J^^^'  ^676,  there  had 
be  n  sold  by  ^e  Company  in  Barbados  1372  negroes;  224,  which  could 
not  be  disposed  of  there,  had  been  shipped  to  the  other  colonies.  Ibid. 
p.  4oi« 

48s,  488.  489.    On  July  X4,  1676,  Atkins  had  written  that  he  did  not  be^ 
We  that  since  his  arrival  in  Barbados,  somewhat  less  than  two  years  prior 
thereto,  2500  negroes  had  been  imported,  although  three  times  as  many  could 
have  been  sold.    C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  615;    ibid.  1675-1676,  p   J^     In 
reply  to  the  letter  of  censure,  he  wrote  to  Secretary  Williamson  that,  for 
some  fme  before  his  arrival  and  for  a  year  thereafter,  the  Company  had 
sent  veiy  few  negroes.    He  added  that  since  then  the  colony  wa3  fully  sup- 
Phed  and  could  take  2000  to  3000  slaves  yearly.     Ibid.  1677-1680,  pp  6  7 
In  1677,  a  vessel,  which  had  arrived  in  England  from  Barbados,  reported  that 
the  colony  was  ve^  prosperous  and  that  several  Spanish  ships  were  trad- 
2  there  for  their  "refuse"  negroes.    One  of  these  vessek  had  taken  away 
300,  paying  about  £25  apiece  for  them.    Cal.  Dom.  1677-1678  p   263 


m  I 


« 


'*   ( 


f 


I 


J' 


'I 


ujiniiM'    ' 


350 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


of  Gentlemen  Planters  in  England  to  complain  that  the  isl- 
and was  poorly  supplied  and  that  the  negroes  delivered  there 
by  the  Company  were  poor  and  useless.^  This  complaint 
was  not  without  some  justification,  for  though  the  number 
of  negroes  was  not  inadequate,^  their  quahty  was  unquestion- 
ably poor.3  It  was,  however,  not  disingenuous  and  had 
a  covert  purpose,  being  intended  to  prejudice  the  Company 
in  the  abortive  campaign  which  Barbados  was  then  inaugu- 
rating against  its  monopolistic  privileges.^    As  there  was  no 

1  C.  O.  31/2,  ff.  339-341 ;   C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  352. 

2  In  the  twelve  months  beginning  Dec.  i,  1678,  the  Company  sold  in 
Barbados  1425  negroes  for  £20,520,  valuing  the  sugar  received  in  pay- 
ment at  105.  a  cwt.  On  Jan.  5,  1680,  were  received  484  more,  which 
were  sold  for  £7050.  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  510.  In  addition,  at  this  time 
a  considerable  number  of  negroes  were  sold  in  the  colony  by  interlopers. 
On  Dec.  2,  1678,  the  agents  in  Barbados  wrote  to  the  Company: 
"Wee  feare  y®  many  Negroes  soe  lately  imported  (by  the  interlopers)  will 
be  a  means  of  making  y^  Comp^.^  Slaves"  not  sell  so  quickly  as  otherwise. 
African  Co.  Papers  i,  ff.  6,  7. 

'On  Aug.  18,  1680,  the  agents  in  Barbados  wrote  to  the  Company: 
"Wee  doe  assure  the  Company  both  these  Last  Ships  brought  as  many 
Miserable  Poore  Old  Lame  Blind  and  Bursten  Negroes  as  ever  any  two 
Ships  of  Like  Nimibers  brought  Since  wee  have  been  here.  .  .  .  And  in- 
deed what  ever  the  matter  is  wee  know  not  but  within  these  two  or  three 
yeares  the  negroes  have  generally  proved  bad  and  come  in  111  Condition  m 
Respect  of  what  they  did  before."    African  Co.  Papers  i,  ff.  63,  64. 

*  At  the  same  time  that  this  complamt  was  forwarded  to  England,  the 
Gentlemen  Planters  there  were  instructed  to  see  'whether  the  Royal  African 
Company  cannot  be  divided  into  sundry  and  separate  stocks  and  jurisdic- 
tions.' C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  352.  On  Dec.  2,  1678,  the  agents  of  the 
Company  in  Barbados,  Edwyn  Stede  and  Stephen  Gascoigne,  wrote  to 
London  that  Colonel  Christopher  Codrington  was  a  great  favorer  of  inter- 
lopers, and  that  he,  Drax,  and  Sharpe  had  bought  the  chief  negroes  from 
the  last  private  trader  at  very  low  prices.  If  this  be  true,  they  added,  it 
was  done  with  the  design  of  prejudicing  the  Company  by  enabling  them  to 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES  351 
Change  of  success,  this  design  was  soon  dropped,  and  the 
specific  complaint  about  an  inadequate  supply  was  not 
pressed. 

During  the  foUowing  ten  years  the  English  government 
was  not  further  bothered  with  the  examination  of  such 
grievances  from  Barbados.  The  Company  delivered  there 
yearly  on  an  average  2400  negroes,'  which,  with  those  secured 
surreptitiously  from  the  private  traders  in  violation  of  the 
Company's  monopoly,  amply  filled  the  wants  of  the  colony 
But  this  interloping  trade,  which  at  this  time  had  assumed 
considerable  proportions,  was  strongly  favored  by  the  colony 
and  equaUy  firmly  opposed  by  the  Company.    Its  efforts 
to  suppress  the  interlopers  led  to  constant  friction  in  Bar- 
bados and  more  than  kept  aUve  the  colony's  antagonism 
to  the  privileged  Company. 

The  relations  of  the  Royal  African  Company  with  the 
other  West  Indian  colonies  were  essentiaUy  similar  The 
Leeward  Islands  had  suffered  severely  during  the  Dutch  and 
French  War,  which  was  concluded  in  1667,  and  had  virtually 
to  begin  their  economic  life  anew.  A  fundamental  require- 
ment was  a  large  nmnber  of  slaves  to  develop  their  resources 
The  Governor,  Sir  Charles  Wheler,  reported  in  1671  that 

say  when  they  arrive  in  England  that  they  can  buy  more  cheaply  of  inter- 


^  { 


If 


M 


352 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


4000  were  needed;^  and,  in  1676,  Governor  Stapleton  stated 
that  the  islands  were  in  a  position  to  take  and  pay  for 
icxx)  negroes  yearly.^  The  slave  population  had  greatly 
increased  during  these  years.  In  1678,  it  amounted  to 
8500.^  Despite  occasional  complaints,  the  wants  of  these 
islands  as  a  whole  seem  to  have  been  adequately  filled.* 
Yet  there  was  unquestionably  some  friction  on  this  score 
between  the  Royal  African  Company  and  the  separate 
islands,^  and  this  was  increased,  as  in  Barbados,  by 
certain  provisions  in  the  local  laws  which  interfered  with 
the  effective  collection  of  debts.*^ 

1  C.  O.  1/27,  52;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  287-292. 

2  C.  O.  1/38,  65;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  497-502.  In  1672,  Stapleton 
said  that  during  the  past  seven  years  no  slaves  had  been  brought  by  the 
Royal  African  Company,  but  that  300  had  been  imported  into  Nevis  by 
licensed  ships  and  300  into  Montserrat  and  Antigua.    C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp. 

392,  393- 

»  St.  Kitts  1436,  Nevis  3849,  Montserrat  992,  Antigua  2172.    C.  C.  1677- 

1680,  p.  266. 

*  In  the  nine  years  from  1680  to  1688,  the  Company  delivered  in  the 
Leeward  Islands  6073  negroes.    C.  O.  388/10,  H  108. 

^  In  1680,  the  Coxmcil  of  St.  Kitts  complained  to  the  Lords  of  Trade 
that  the  Royal  African  Company  did  not  supply  their  wants  and  stated 
that  it  was  'as  great  a  bondage  for  us  to  cultivate  our  plantations  without 
negro  slaves  as  for  the  Egyptians  to  make  bricks  without  straw.'  They 
admitted  that  a  large  mmiber  of  negroes  had  been  sent  to  Nevis,  whence 
they  might  have  been  supplied,  but  they  claimed  that  in  this  manner  they 
got  only  the  poor  negroes  and  these  at  immoderate  rates.  C.  C.  1677-1680, 
pp.  571-574.     See  also  C.  O.  391/3,  ff-  231,  232 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  629. 

^  Though  irnited  under  one  government  and  at  this  time  occasionally 
holding  a  federal  General  Assembly,  each  of  the  four  chief  islands  had  its 
separate  legislature  and  insisted  upon  passing  its  own  laws.  C.  C.  1681- 
1685,  p.  530.  In  1683,  some  London  merchants  trading  to  the  Leeward 
Islands  stated  in  a  petition  that  'a  law  has  lately  been  made  at  St.  Chris- 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  ANB  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    353 

In  Jamaica,  similar  disputes  and  controversies  took  place. 
After  the  conclusion  of  peace  with  Spain  in  1670,  the  colony 
was  able  to  develop  its  agricultural  resources,  which  hitherto 
had  been  neglected  on  account  of  the  large  profits  derived 
from  privateering.    As  a  result,  the  slave  population  of  the 
island  grew  apace.    In  1670,  the  colony  had  but  2500  negroes, 
while  five  years  later  their  number  was  said  to  have  been 
9000.1    At  this  time,  the  Governor,  Lord  Vaughan,  wrote 
that  the  Royal  African   Company  had  of  late  supplied 
Jamaica  very  weU,  though  at  extraordmary  rates,  no  negro 
being  sold  for  less  than  £22  cash.=     The  foUowing  year 
however,  Peter  Beckford  -  a  forefather  of  Chatham's  weU- 
known  supporter -as  Secretary  of  the  Colony,  wrote  to  Sir 
Joseph  Williamson'  that  the  people  were  'much  dissatisfied 
with  the  Royal  Company.'     He  claimed  that,  as  they  were 

tophe,^  which,  to  eflfect,  leaves  the  debtor  at  Kberty  to  pay,  or  not  to  pay, 
ks  debU  at  wi^  and  we  have  reason  to  fear  that  the  inhabitants  of  the 
other  Islands  wiU  try  to  obtain  a  like  Act  to  the  ruin  of  petitioners.'    Ibid 
p.  528.    At  the  same  time,  the  Royal  African  Company  complained  against 
this  law  statmg  that,  according  to  it,  the  property  of  the  debtor  was  ap- 
praised by  three  of  his  neighbors  and  had  to  be  taken  by  the  creditor  at 
this  valuation,  and  any  surplus  over  his  claim  had  to  be  paid  to  the  debtor. 
It  IS  plam,    they  said,  'to  what  frauds  such  a  law  gives  opening  '    IbU 
PP-  538,  539.    Accordingly,  the  law  in  question  was  repealed  by  an  Order 
m  CM     IbU.  pp.  569,  774.     Governor  Stapleton,  however,  wrote  to 
the  I^rds  of  Trade  that  untU  recently  there  had  been  no  complaint  against 
this  Act  and  a  similar  one  in  Nevis,  and  that  the  merchants  had  always 
been  treated  fairly.    IbU.  p.  585.    The  question  was  then  reopened,  and 
the  Lords  of  Trade  decided  that  a  clause  should  be  added  to  the  Act,  com- 
pelhng  the  appraisers  to  take  the  property  at  the  valuation  set  by  them. 
Ibtd.  p.  714.  ^  """"^ 

i  ^;lf  'f^^'^'4,  pp.  52,  S3;  ibid.  1675-1676,  pp.  314,  315. 
Ihd.  1675-1676,  p.  19..  .  i^  PP  ^^^_  ^^^ 


2A 


354 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


t  i 


so  inadequately  furnished  with  negroes,  it  had  become  a 
good  trade  to  buy  slaves  in  Barbados  for  £17  with  the 
object  of  selling  them  in  Jamaica  for  £24.  In  order  to 
expedite  the  settlement  of  Jamaica,  it  was  even  suggested 
at  this  time  that  special  permission  be  granted  to  this 
colony  to  trade  to  Africa  for  negroes,  provided  security 
were  given  not  to  carry  them  elsewhere.^  The  average 
number  of  negroes  imported  during  this  decade  was  15CX) 
annually,  but  the  island  demanded  more.^ 

In  1679,  the  Jamaica  legislature  petitioned  the  Duke  of 
York  to  intercede  with  the  African  Company  for  a  sufficient 
supply  of  negroes  at  moderate  rates.^  In  due  course  this 
petition  was  carefully  investigated  by  the  Lords  of  Trade, 
who  held  a  hearing,  at  which  were  represented  the  interested 
parties.*  On  behalf  of  the  Royal  African  Company,  it 
was  stated  that  Jamaica  owed  them  £60,000  for  negroes  and 
that  upon  the  arrival  of  this  year's  ships  the  amount 
would  be  increased  to  £110,000.  It  was  contended  that 
the  negroes  cost  originally  in  Africa  £5,  that  the  expense  of 
their  transportation  was  only  somewhat  less  than  this  sum, 
to  which  further  had  to  be  added  twenty-five  per  cent 
which  "they  lose  by  the  vsual  mortaUty  of  y'  Negros," 
while  in  addition  the  Company  spent  yearly  for  main- 
taining the  forts  in  Africa  £20,000. 

In  their  turn,  the  representatives  of  the  colony  stated  ^ 

1 C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  515,  516.  2  Ibid.  1677-1680,  p.  344. 

» Ibid.  p.  436.  4  iifid,  pp.  625,  626;  C.  O.  391/3,  ff.  228  et.  seq. 

^  These  statements  were  embodied  in  a  memorial,  which  was  read  by 
the  Committee  on  Nov.  4,  1680,  the  day  of  this  hearing.  C.  O.  1/46,  32 ; 
C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  626,  627. 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    355 

that  Jamaica  would  buy  yearly  3000  to  4000  negroes, 
provided  the  price  were  £16  or  £17  in  lots  containing  'no 
refuse  negroes'  and  a  credit  of  six  months  time  were 
aUowed.  'If  the  Company,'  they  said,  'objects  that  the 
Island  has  always  had  more  than  it  could  pay  for,  then  it 
is  truly  answered '  that  this  is  due  to  the  extortionate  prices 
demanded,  and  that  'the  Islanders  are  under  no  great 
obligation  to  the  Company  for  biting  and  devouring  them 
by  such  unreasonable  and  unconscionable  deahng.' 

With  a  view  to  a  compromise  satisfactory  to  both  parties, 
the  Lords  of  Trade  thereupon  asked  the  Company  whether 
they  could  furnish  Jamaica  with  negroes  at  £18;  and,  upon 
the  receipt  of  an  affirmative  answer,  they  advised  the  King 
to  order  the  Company  to  send  there  yearly  3000  'merchant- 
able^ negroes  to  be  sold  at  £18  a  head  in  lots  on  six  months 
credit,  provided  good   security  were   given.    The    Com- 
mittee further  reported  that  the  Company  should  also  be 
obliged  to  send  constant  supplies  of  negroes  to  the  other 
colonies  and  to  take  particular  care  that  Montserrat  and 
St.  Christopher  (which  had  also  forwarded  complaints  of 
a  great  scarcity)  should  be  weU  stocked  in  the  future.^ 
This  report  was  adopted  and  its  recommendations  were 
embodied  in  an  Order  in  Coundl,  dated  November  12 
1680.2  ' 

The  Company's  agents  in  Jamaica  comphed  with  the 
terms  of  the  order,  although  to  some  extent  violating  its 
spirit  by  making  up  lots  of  a  poorer  average  equaUty  than 

•  C.  O.  391/3,  £f.  231,  232 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  629. 

•  P.  C.  Cal.  n,  p.  12 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  639. 


356 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


I         I 


I 


had  been  customary.  But  even  if  the  average  were  poorer, 
the  price  of  £i8  was  so  low  that  competent  judges  thought  the 
private  traders  would  be  driven  from  the  Jamaica  market.^ 
Instead  of  this  result,  the  Company  found  that  under  the 
prevailing  conditions  it  could  not  make  money  at  this  price, 
and  hence  the  number  of  negroes  stipulated  was  not  sent  to 
Jamaica,  and  the  field  was  left  free  to  the  increasing  number 
of  interlopers.^ 

»  On  June  27,  1681,  Render  Molesworth  and  the  other  agents  in  Jamaica 
wrote  to  the  Company :  "Wee  preseeded  w*?  an  equall  respect  to  the  Order 
of  Coimcill  &  your  Interest  (in  the  Sale  of  Bills  Negroes)  Soe  that  making 
our  Lotts  accordingly  (w'?  a  mixture  of  more  Ordinary  Negrf)  wee  Sold  at 
*i8  p  head  Six  m*f  &  ^17  ready  money.  After  w^**  rate  the  diffrence 
vpon  the  whole  is  not  considerable  from  what  it  would  have  been  if  wee 
had  only  putt  choice  negroes  in  Lotts  as  formerly  &  Sold  at  ^22."  They 
then  added  that  the  interlopers  could  not  sell  profitably  at  this  price  and 
would  be  ruined.  African  Co.  Papers  i,  f.  116.  On  June  13,  1681,  the 
Deputy-Governor  of  Jamaica,  Sir  Henry  Morgan,  wrote:  'I  doubt  not 
that  the  interloping  commerce  would  fall  of  itself  if  the  Company  would 
keep  the  Island  sufficiently  supplied  with  negroes  at  the  present  rates.' 
C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  72,  73.  Shortly  thereafter,  he  wrote  that  the  Company 
had,  in  accordance  with  the  royal  commands,  sold  the  negroes  in  the  last 
ship  at  £18  a  head,  'which  proves  a  great  help  and  ease  to  the  country.' 
Ibid.  p.  82. 

2  On  Aug.  29,  1682,  the  new  Governor,  Sir  Thomas  Lynch,  wrote  to 
the  Lords  of  Trade :  'I  think  the  Company  has  imported  about  fifteen  hun- 
dred since  I  came,  which  were  sold  for  ready  money  in  a  day ;  and  many 
men  that  had  money  went  away  without  any  slaves.'  A  month  later,  he 
wrote  that  Jamaica  was  inadequately  supplied.  The  date  of  Lynch's 
arrival  was  May  14,  1682.  Ibid.  pp.  231,  286,  301-303.  On  May  6,  1683, 
Lynch  wrote  that  during  the  preceding  six  months  the  Company  had  sent 
none.  Ibid.  p.  427.  See  also  pp.  486,  525,  532.  These  statements,  and 
those  made  in  the  above  references,  do  not  fully  agree  with  the  official  re- 
port of  the  Company,  giving  the  number  of  negroes  delivered  by  it  in  Ja- 
maica during  the  nine  years  from  1680  to  1688 :  — 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND   THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    357 

Early  in  1683/  the  Royal  African  Company  petitioned 
the  King,  recapitulating  the  events  leading  up  to  the  order 
in  Council  of  November  12,  1680,  and  statmg  that  the  price 
of  £18  therein  stipulated  had  been  embodied  in  a  Jamaica 
law,  which  further  made  'the  planters  judge  in  their  own 
cause  as  to  what  negroes  are  merchantable,  to  our  great 
prejudice.'    In  addition,  they  asserted  that  they  were  in- 
jured by  the  fact  that  Spanish  money  was  legally  current  in 
Jamaica  at  rates  greatly  in  excess  of  its  intrinsic  value  2 
and,  furthermore,  that  the  competition  of  the  interiopers  in 
Africa  had  raised  the  price  of  negroes  there  by  one-third. 
As  a  consequence,  they  claimed  that  their  trade  to  Jamaica 
could  not  be  contmued,  and  prayed  as  a  remedy  that  the 

° 1371  negroes 

^^^^ 1576  negroes 

^^^^ 1452  negroes 

^  ^ 2919  negroes 

^^^4 2066  negroes 

^  ^ 3327  negroes 

3094  negroes 

^^^7 595  negroes 

^^^ 2402  negroes 

^^^^ 18,802      neg"^ 

C.  O.  388/10,  H  108. 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  P-  370- 

2  They  said  that  light  Spanish  money  passed  in  Jamaica  without  any 
determined  weight  and  that,  as  the  prices  of  the  colony's  produce  were  in 
consequence  high,  they  lost  one-third  on  their  returns  from  Jamaica.  The 
Jamaica  law  of  1681  provided  that  Peru  pieces  of  eight  should  pass  at  4^. 
and  Mexico  Seville  at  55.  C.  O.  139/8  (Printed  Acts  of  Jamaica,  1681- 
1737),  pp.  27,  28.  In  reply,  the  Jamaicans  stated  that  'the  lightness  of 
money'  did  not  prejudice  the  Company,  and  that  it  had  been  current  at 
these  rates  for  years.    C.  C.  1681-1685,  P-  378. 


'J 


U     I 


III 


f 


\   «' 


i 

I 


358 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Order  in  Council  of  November  12,  1680,  be  rescinded  and 
that  the  Jamaica  law  Umiting  the  price  of  negroes  be  not 
confirmed. 

The  representatives  of  Jamaica  in  England,  in  reply,  con- 
tended that  the  Company's  troubles  were  due  to  misman- 
agement and  that  light  money  might  be  refused.     They 
further  pointed  out  that  the  interloping  private  traders 
found  it  profitable  to  sell  at  £18.1    Pending  further  infor- 
mation as  to  the  merits  of  the  case,  the  government  decided 
that  the  Jamaica  Act  fixing  the  price  of  negroes  should  not 
be  confirmed,  but  should  remain  in  force  only  during  the 
King's  pleasure.2    Upon  receipt  of  the  news  of  these  pro- 
ceedings in  England,  Governor  Lynch,  who  was  especially 
anxious  to  develop  a  trade  in  negroes  from  Jamaica  to 
Spanish  America,  wrote  to  the  Lord  President  of  the  Privy 
Council :   'We  were  surprised  to  hear  that  our  friends  con- 
tended so  violently  for  keeping  up  the  Negro  Act.    I  gave  no 
such  directions,  and  the  people  will  be  quite  content  with 
the  King's  order.    It  is  the  faHure  to  provide  negroes  that 
is  the  ruin  of  all'  ^    in  his  speech  to  the  Assembly  in  the 
fall  of  1683,  Lynch  also  spoke  agamst  the  colony's  law 
fixing  the  price  of  negroes,  saying  "it's  against  the  reason 
and  nature  of  commerce  to  put  a  perpetual  or  standing  price 
on  goods  we  need,  for  trade  ought  to  have  all  Hberty  and 
encouragement."  ^ 

In  the  meanwhile,  further  investigations  were  being  made 

»  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  378.    See  also  pp.  ^83,  384. 

*  Ibid.  p.  386 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  II,  pp.  46-48. 

'  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  427.  *  Ibid.  p.  487. 


\ 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    359 

in  England.    The  representatives  of  the  colony  complained 
bitteriy  that  the  Royal  African  Company  had  suspended 
shippmg  negroes  to  the  island,  and  asserted  that  as  a  result 
5000  would  be  needed  the  first  year  and  3000  annually 
.    thereafter.    They  further  said  that  they  had  no  authority 
to  consent  to  an  abrogation  of  the  agreement  of  1680,  but  if 
this  were  done,  they  prayed  that  the  Company  be  obliged 
to  furnish  the  numbers  mentioned  above,  as  otherwise  the 
price  being  no  longer  Hmited,  'it  will  simply  feed  the  market 
with  just  enough  to  keep  the  prices  at  a  ruinous  height '  1 
On  its  behalf,  the  Royal  African  Company  begged  for  a 
release  from  the  agreement  of  1680,  because  the  change  in 
conditions  during  the  intervening  three  years  had  made  its 
terms  impossible.^    FinaUy,  in  November  of  1683,  the  Lords 
of  Trade  advised  the  repeal  of  the  agreement  of  1680,  as  weU 
as  that  of  the  Jamaica  Act  embodying  its  terms;  and  recom- 
mended  that  the  African  Company  be  obliged  to  furnish  this 
colony  with  5000  negroes  the  first  year  and  3000  annuaUy 
thereafter.3     The  final  decision  was  somewhat  delayed  by 
further  complications,^  but  in  the  spring  of  1684  the  govern- 
ment  adopted  this  recommendation,  and  orders  to  this  effect 
were  issued.^    A  short  time  thereafter.  Governor  Lynch  in- 
'  ^^^^- 1681-1685,  pp.  512,  513. 

» Ibid.  pp.  471,  525,  526.     They  claimed  that  the  colonies  owed  the 
Company  £130,000  for  negroes  delivered. 

« Ibid.  p.  536. 

'  ^bid.  pp.  544,  570,  579,  580,  598. 

ybid  pp.  601,  602,  612;  P.  C.  Cal.  n,  p.  63.  On  Feb.  28,  1684, 
before  the  issue  of  the  Order  in  CouncU  giving  effect  to  this  arrangement, 
Lynch  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  that  he  had  acquainted  the  Assembly 
with  their  decision,  'with  which  they  seemed  satisfied,  and  desired  to  thank 


^ii 


jii 


*f 


f 


;i 


••I 


r 


n 


360 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


formed  the  EngKsh  authorities  that  the  Royal  African  was 
beginning  to  supply  them  well,  but  that  they  would  not 
want  the  large  number  of  negroes  agreed  upon,  unless  the 
Spaniards  should  come  to  Jamaica  to  procure  slaves  for  their 
colonies.^ 

It  was  not  alone  the  colony's  own  needs,  but  also  the 
desire  to  gain  a  share  of  the  slave-trade  to  Spanish  Amer- 
ica, that  caused  the  Jamaica  merchants  at  this  time  to 
insist  upon  so  large  a  number  of  negroes.  As  has  already 
been  pointed  out,  the  various  African  companies  of  this 
period  were  designed  both  to  supply  the  wants  of  the  En^ish 
colonies  and  also  to  secure  a  portion  of  the  lucrative  Spanish 
trade.  With  this  latter  object  in  view,  the  provisions  of  the 
Navigation  Act  had  even  been  relaxed.  The  continuance 
of  hostilities  between  the  EngHsh  and  the  Spanish  in  the 
West  Indies  had,  however,  frustrated  this  scheme;  but,  after 
the  conclusion  of  a  definitive  peace  in  1670,  renewed  hopes 
were  entertained.  In  1672,  Sir  Thomas  Lynch,  then  for  the 
first  time  in  charge  of  Jamaica,  wrote  to  Secretary  Arhngton 
that  he  had  had  expectations  of  entering  into  a  trade  with 
the  Spaniards,  but  that  they  were  more  cautious  than  ever 
since  the  peace,  and  hence  only  a  few  straggling  negroes 
could  be  sold  to  them.^  This  failure  was  mainly  due  to  a 
fresh  international  dispute  caused  by  English  traders  cutting 
logwood  in  Yucatan,  which  Spain  insisted  was  an  unwarranted 

your  Lordships/    C.  C.  1681-1685,  P-  593-    Shortly  after  its  adoption,  this 
settlement  was  slightly  modified.    Ibid.  pp.  632,  636. 

*  Ibid.  p.  656. 

2  Ibid.  1669-1674,  p.  335.    See  also  pp.  339-341. 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    361 

invasion  of  her  colonial  dominions.    During  the  following 
years,  Spain  seized  a  large  number  of  English  colonial  ves- 
sels engaged  in  this  trade,  and  incidentally  also  some  others 
not  impKcated  in  it,  while  in  reprisal  the  English  took  several 
Spanish  ships.^    Despite  these  more  than  sporadic  hostili- 
ties, further  attempts  were  made  during  this  decade  to  sell 
negroes  to  the  Spaniards,^  but  nothing  of  importance  could 
be  accompUshed  until  that  energetic  supporter  of  the  Spanish 
trade.  Sir  Thomas  Lynch,  again  assumed  the  administration 
of  Jamaica.    In  1682,  shortly  after  his  arrival  in  the  island, 
the  new  Governor  wrote  that  there  was  an  exceUent  oppor- 
tunity for  a  trade  in  negroes  to  Spanish  America,  but  un- 
fortunately the  colony's  supplies  were  inadequate.^     Several 
months  thereafter,  Lynch  reported  that,  as  a  Spanish  vessel 
had  been  unable  to  procure  negroes  from  the  Royal  African 
Company's  agents  in  Jamaica,  he  had  permitted  it  to  buy 
about  one  hundred  from  an  interloper,^  and  that  two  or 
three  thousand  could  have  been  sold  to  the  Spaniards  during 
the  preceding  half  year,  had  such  numbers  been  available.^ 
At  this  time,  comparatively  few  negroes  were  being  de- 
livered in  Jamaica  for  the  account  of  the  Royal  African 
Company,  as  the  price  of  £18  fixed  by  law  did  not  aUow  a 
sufficient  margin  of  profit;  but,  in  1684,  after  this  matter 
had  been  adjusted,  the  supply  of  negroes  became  adequate. 
As  a  result,  fairly  large  purchases  were  made  by  the  Span- 

1  See  post,  Vol.  II,  pp.  67-71. 

2  See  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  501. 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  301-303.  4  Ibid.  p.  393. 

*  Ibid.  p.  427.     See  also  pp.  594,  597. 


?♦" 


u    < 


m. 


362 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


lards  in  Jamaica.^    But  just  when  this  difficulty  was  being 
removed,  another  obstacle  presented  itself.     In  1677,  at 
the  request  of  the  Royal   African  Company,   which  had 
made  an  arrangement  with  the  Spanish  authorities,  the 
English    government   had  instructed  Governor  Atkms  of 
Barbados  and   Governor  Vaughan   of  Jamaica  to  aUow 
Spanish  ships  to  purchase  negroes  there,  provided  the  laws  of 
trade  and  navigation  were  not  infringed.^    Acting  on  these 
instructions,  two  Spanish  ships  had  been  aUowed  to  trade 
at  Jamaica  in  1677.2    In  the  meanwhHe,  however,  the  Eng- 
Hsh  government  made  belated  inquiries  as  to  the  legality 
of  the  orders  issued  by  it.    The  SoHcitor- General  reported 
that  this  trade  was  iUegal,  since  negroes  should  be  esteemed 
goods  or  commodities,  which,  accordmg  to  the  Navigation 
Act,  could  not  be  exported  from  the  colonies  in  foreign 
ships.-*    Accordingly,  early  in  1678,  the  Lord  of  Trade  de- 
cided that  this  trade  ought  not  to  be  permitted.^    Appar- 
ently, however,  no  orders  to  this  effect  were  sent  to  the 
colonies,  and  it  was  on  the  strength  of  the  instructions  sent 
to  Lord  Vaughan  in  1677  that  Lynch  permitted  Spanish 
vessels  to  come  to  Jamaica.    In  1684,  the  legahty  of  this 
trade  was  again  questioned.     A  Spanish  vessel  engaged  in 
taking  negroes  from  Jamaica  to  the  Spanish  Main  was 
seized  as  an  offender  against  the  Navigation  Act.    Lynch, 
who  was  the  chief  sponsor  of  the  trade  and  also  financially 

^  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  594,  682-684,  721,  748. 

2  Ibid.  1677-1680,  p.  84.  » Ibid.  p.  169.  « Ibid.  p.  120. 

'Ibid.  pp.  175,  209,  210.  See  also  pp.  85,  134,  135.  In  1680/1,  a 
Spanish  vessel  remained  at  Jamaica  for  a  considerable  time,  waiting  for  the 
slave-ships.    Ibid.  1681-1685,  PP.  5,  6. 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    363 

interested  in  it,  claimed  that  this  action  was  purely  vexa- 
tious, refused  to  countenance  the  proceedings,  and  the  ship 
was  released.!  The  men  responsible  for  this  seizure  then 
complamed  to  England,^  where  the  matter  was  referred  to 
the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs.  They  reported  in 
favor  of  continuing  the  order  of  1677  permitting  the  Span- 
ish negro  trade.^  Accordingly,  specific  instructions  to  this 
effect  were  sent  on  November  30,  1684,  to  Render  Moles- 
worth,  who  as  Lieutenant-Governor  had  assumed  charge  of 
the  island  on  Lynch's  death  a  few  months  prior  to  this.* 

»  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  593,  629,  636,  637,  656. 
2  Ibid.  pp.  644,  645,  748,  749.  3  Ibid.  pp.  677,  719,  728,  733. 

*  lUd.  p.  739.    This  order  led  to  suggestions  for  a  further  relaxation 
of  the  laws  of  trade.    In  1685,  Molesworth  wrote  that  an  attempt  had 
been  made  to  seize  the  ship  Saint  Antonio  belonging  to  Nicolas  Porcio, 
the  agent  of  the  Assiento.     The  act,  he  added,  seemed  to  be  maHcious,' 
but  he  begged  for  an  explanation  of  the  King's  orders  in  favor  of  this  Spanish 
trade.    'Is  the  Uberty  of  buying  and  exporting  our  EngKsh  manufactures 
comprehended,  though  not  expressed,  within  the  intention  of  the  order? 
My  construction  is  that  it  is  so,'  but  the  Jamaica  Council  was  in  doubt. 
Molesworth  then  argued  that  such  sales  of  EngHsh  manufactures  would  be 
very  advantageous  and  would  not  lead  to  the  iUegal  exportation  of  the 
island's  produce  in  violation  of  the  enumeration  clauses.    He  further  added 
that  such  importations  of  EngHsh  manufactures  into  the  Spanish  colonies 
were  prohibited,  'yet  the  danger  is  easily  avoided,  by  making  up  the  goods 
in  small  parcels  and  so  covering  them  as  to  protect  them  from  rain.     These 
are  landed  in  some  wood  near  the  port  to  which  they  are  bound,  and  left 
with  a  man  to  watch  them  till  they  can  be  brought  into  town  by  night. 
This  cannot  be  done  with  our  Island  produce,  through  its  nature,  weight, 
and  bulk;  moreover,  it  is  of  no  value  there.'    IbU.  1685-1688,  pp.  19,  20! 
In  1685  also,  the  holders  of  the  Assiento  requested  permission  to  import 
Spanish  fruits  directly  into  Jamaica.    The  Commissioners  of  the  Customs 
reported  adversely;  but,  at  the  request  of  the  Royal  African  Company,  the 
Lords  of  Trade  decided  to  instruct  the  Governor  of  Jamaica  to  favor  this 
petition  so  far  as  he  legally  could.    Ibid.  pp.  54,  55,  64.    In  1686,  the 


ttii> 


II 


364 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Molesworth,  who  had  been  one  of  the  African  Company's 
factors  in  Jamaica,  naturaUy  foUowed  Lynch's  policy  of 
encouraging  this  trade.  The  Dutch  merchants,  who  had 
contracted  with  the  Spanish  government  for  its  supply  of 
negroes,  sent  an  agent  to  Jamaica,^  and  several  ships  with 
slaves  purchased  there  were  sent  on  account  of  this  Assiento 
to  the  Spanish  colonies.  Such  ships,  as  in  Lynch's  time, 
were  despatched  under  the  convoy  of  the  EngUsh  man-of- 
war  stationed  at  Jamaica.^ 

There  quickly  developed  in  the  colony  considerable  op- 
position to  this  Spanish  trade.  The  Jamaica  planters, 
as  distinct  from  the  merchants,  had  always  opposed  it,^ 

Assiento's  agent  in  Jamaica  petitioned  for  permission  to  export  some  of 
Jamaica's  products  —  principaUy  sugar,  which  was  cheaper  than  m  Cuba  — 
on  payment  of  the  same  duties  as  were  coUected  in  England.  Being  iUegal, 
this  was  refused,  but  the  CouncU  asked  Molesworth  to  recommend  this 
suggestion  to  the  King.    Ibid.  p.  357- 

1  For  the  early  history  of  the  Assiento,  see  J.  de  Veitia  Linage,  The  Spanish 
Rule  of  Trade  to  the  West  Indies  (trans,  by  John  Stevens,  London,  1702), 
pp  154-159.    According  to  Lynch,  the  Dutch  firm  of  Quayman  (Coymans) 
Brothers  made  a  contract  in  1683  with  Spain  to  furnish  18,000  negroes  m 
seven  years  and  appointed  Nicolas  Porcio  as  their  agent  in  the  West  Indies. 
C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  594-596.    In  1685,  one  Beck  (Beque)  arrived  m  Jamaica 
as  the  representative  of  Coymans,  and  requested  the  dehvery  of  Porcio  s 
effects.     On  the  disputes  about  this  matter,  see  ibid.  pp.  44,  76,  77,  142, 
143     A  detailed  and  authoritative  account  of  the  various  contracts  with 
Spanish  government  has  been  written  by  Georges  Scelle,  who  gives  full 
details  of  Coymans,  Porcio,  Balthazar  Beque,  Santiago  del  CastiUo,  and  the 
legal  wrangles  in  Jamaica.    Unfortunately,  he  made  no  use  of  the  Enghsh 
colonial  state  papers,  which  would  have  added  considerable  additional  in- 
formation.   Scelle,  La  Traite  Negriere  aux  Indes  de  Castille  (Pans,  1906), 

I,  pp.  641-675. 

«  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  593,  752,  755 ;  ihid.  1685-1688,  pp.  82, 83, 142, 143- 
8  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  501- 


11 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    365 

fearing  both  that  the  best  negroes  would  be  sold  to  the  Span- 
iards and  also  that  the  price  of  their  own  labor  supply  would 
be  raised  by  the  increased  demand.    The  political  party  in 
the  island,  which  had  been  opposed  to  Lynch,  availed  itself 
of  this  hostility  and  tried  in  various  ways  to  thwart  the 
policy  of  Molesworth.^    They  attacked  Molesworth  be- 
cause he,  like  Lynch,^  was  receiving  large  fees  for  permit- 
ting this  trade  and  for  the  protection  afforded  to  it  by  the 
English  men-of-war.3    xhese  payments  were  customary  and 
were  made  openly ;  they  were  not  regarded  as  illegitimate 
perquisites,  though  the  not  over-sensitive  poHtical  morality 
of  the  day  was  beginning  to  regard  them  with  suspicion. 
Molesworth  did  not  deny  the  facts ;  but,  strangely  obtuse 
to   the  principle  involved,   vehemently   defended  himself, 
writing  to  the  Earl  of  Sunderland  in  a  tone  akin  to  righteous 
indignation  that  the  'premios,  with  which  the  Spaniards 
had  rewarded  my  services,  are  envied  by  my  opposers,  who 
magnify  the  same  above  all  measure,  and  would  make  that 

1  In  1684,  Molesworth  wrote  to  Blathwayt  that  the  future  well-known 
Governor  of  Massachusetts,  WiUiam  Phipps,  then  Captain  of  H.M.S.  Rose, 
'being  egged  on  by  iU-wishers  to  the  trade,'  had  insulted  the  Spanish  at 
Jamaica  and  was  driving  them  away.     C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  729. 

2  C.  O.  1/54,  Part  II,  nos.  108,  114;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP.  595,  722, 

7a8 

3C.  O.  138/6,  ff.  287-294.  This  EngUsh  trade  with  the  Spaniards 
centred  at  Jamaii:a,  but  some  also  was  carried  on  in  Barbados.  One  of 
the  charges  brought  in  1683  against  Sir  Richard  Button,  the  Governor,  was 
that  he  had  demanded  six  dollars  a  head  for  allowing  1000  negroes  to  be  sold 
to  the  Spaniards.  Button  admitted  receiving  the  sum,  but  said  that  it  had 
been  given  to  him  after  the  conclusion  of  the  business,  and  stated  that  such 
payments  had  been  customary  under  former  governors.  C.  C.  1681-1685, 
pp.  552,  559-561. 


iQ 


*  1, 

I' 


4 


! 


I 


» 


•It 


\ 


Hi 


f 
I 


366 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


appear  criminal  which  is  really  meritorious.'^  In  addition, 
this  party  in  1686  tried  to  obstruct  the  trade  by  passing 
laws  imposing  duties  on  negroes  exported  and  on  goods 
imported  in  foreign  bottoms,  but  Molesworth  refused  to 
give  his  assent  to  them.^ 

During  the  midst  of  this  controversy,  in  December  of 
1687,  the  Duke  of  Albemarle  —  the  unworthy  son  of  the 
great  Monck  —  arrived  as  Governor  of  the  colony.  He 
allied  himself  with  Sir  Henry  Morgan  and  the  other  leaders 
of  the  party  opposed  to  Molesworth  and  his  policy.^  With 
his  consent,  the  Assembly  in  1688  passed  an  act  raising 
the  value  of  the  coin  current  in  the  island,  which  was 
equivalent  to  scaling  down  the  debts  of  creditors,  and 
called  forth  justifiable  complaints  from  the  Royal  African 
Company.^  Shortly  thereafter,  however,  death  brought  to 
a  close  the  Duke  of  Albemarle's  intemperate  career,  and 
.  Molesworth,  who  had  been  in  England  convincing  the  gov- 
ernment of  his  rectitude,  was  again  restored  to  office,  while 
all  the  appointments  of  Albemarle  were  cancelled.^  These 
steps  could  not,  however,  do  away  with  the  opposition  of 
the  planters  to  the  Spanish  trade,  or  with  their  resentment 
towards  their  chief  creditor,  the  Royal  African  Company ; 
and  thus,  when  the  Revolution  of  1688/9  drove  James  II 
from  the  throne,  there  were  outstanding  a  number  of  un- 
settled difficulties  between  the  slave-trading  Company  and 
Jamaica. 

*  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  180,  181.    Cf.  pp.  278,  407,  408. 

*  Ibid.  pp.  212,  213,  277,  278.  *  Ibid,  pp.  516,  523,  573,  622. 
'  Ibid.  pp.  480,  514-516.  ^  Ibid.  pp.  619,  620. 


I 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    367 

At  various  times  and  in  varying  degrees,  aU  the  sugar 
colonies  were  involved  in  similar  controversies  with  the 
Royal  African  Company.    Such  disputes  were,  however, 
confined  to  the  West  Indies.    In  thb  tobacco  colonies,  the' 
negro  had  not  as  yet  to  any  marked  extent  displaced  the 
white  laborer.    In  1671,  Governor  Berkeley  estimated  that 
Virginia  had  2000  negro  slaves,'  and  ten  years  later  Lord 
Culpeper  stated  that,  out  of  a  total  population  of  between 
70,000  and  80,000,  15,000  were  white  indentured  servants 
and  only  3000  negro  slaves."    Thus,  at  this  time,  Virginia's 
slave  population  was  just  equal  to  the  number  that  the 
Jamaica  merchants  msisted  should  be  shipped  to  their  col- 
ony every  year.    Conditions  in  Maryland  were  essentiaUy 
the  same.    At  so  late  a  date  as  1705,  the  slave  population 
of  this  province  numbered  only  4475.'    The  slow  expansion 
of  slavery  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  tobacco  planters 
were  not  so  prosperous  as  their  feUows  engaged  in  the  West 
Indian  sugar  industry,  and  did  not  have  the  comparatively 
large  capital  required  for  the  extensive  purchase  of  negroes.^ 
During  the  seventies,  tiie  decade  in  which  the  Royal 
African  Company  received  its  charter,  tobacco  was  greatly 
depressed  in  price;  and,  in  addition,  Virginia  was  disorgan- 
ized by  serious  political  disturbances.    As  a  consequence, 

'  C.  O.  1/26,  771;  Hening  II,  pp.  511-517. 

'  C.  C.  1681-168S,  p.  157-  » C.  O.  5/71S,  G  15. 

♦  "The  institution  of  slavery  played  there  [Virginia]  but  an  insignificant 
part  in  the  course  of  the  greater  portion  of  this  century,  not  because  the 
Afncan  was  looked  on  as  an  undesirable  element  in  the  local  industrial 
system,  but  because  the  means  of  obtaining  the  individuals  of  this  race 
were  very  limited."    Bruce,  Economic  History  II,  p.  57. 


368 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


this  colony  afforded  a  poor  market  for  negroes.     Some 
slaves  were,  however,  imported  by  the  Company,^  which  had 
its  representative  here  as  in  the  island  colonies.^    By  1679, 
however,  this  smaU  supply  was  already  in  excess  of  the  effec- 
tive demand,  for  a  few  months  later  the  Company  was  in- 
formed that  "now  good  negroes  are  soe  plenty  that  few  will 
buy  bad  though  at  Low  Prizes/' »    Two  years  later.  Governor 
Culpeper,  after  commenting  on  the  disastrously  low  price 
of  tobacco,  wrote :    '  Our  thriving  is  our  undomg,  and  our 
purchase  of  negroes,  by  increasing  the  supply  of  tobacco, 
has  greatly  contributed  thereunto.'  ^    Yet,  during  the  fol- 
lowing years  precedmg  the  Revolution  of  1688/9,  Virginia 
continued  to  purchase  negroes,  though  on  a  small  scale  when 
compared  with  the  numbers  landed  in  the  West  Indies.    In 
part  these  slaves  were  procured  from  the  island  colonies, 
and  in  part  also  from  interloping  private  traders.^    Pre- 
sumably some  negroes  were  also  obtained  from  the  Royal 
African  Company,  as  it  continued  to  have  an  agent  in  Vir- 
gmia   to   look   after   its   affairs.^     These   interests   were, 

1  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  552 ;  ibid.  1675-1676,  p.  202 ;  Va.  Mag.  XIV,  p. 

198.  ,      _ 

2  On  Feb.  17,  1679,  John  Seayres  wrote  from  Virginia  to  the  Com- 
pany that  as  their  agent,  Mr.  Skinner,  had  died,  the  Governor  had  honored 
him  with  this  employment.    He  added  some  information  about  one  of  the 

•  Company's  ships  that  had  arrived  in  Virginia  from  Africa,  and  stated  that 
46  of  the  choicest  negroes  had  been  sold  before  entry  to  various  men. 

African  Co.  Papers  i,  f.  9- 

3  Virginia,  June  25,  1679,  Nathaniel  Bacon  and  Edward  Jones  to  the 

Company.    Ibid.  f.  19. 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  156.       ^  Bruce,  Economic  History  II,  pp.  80-85. 

«  In  1686,  Christopher  Robinson  was  the  agent.    African  Co.  Papers  12, 
f.  149. 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    369 

however,  as  yet  of  marked  insignificance  when  contrasted 
with  those  in  the  West  Indies.^ 

In  addition  to  the  friction  arising  from  the  causes  already 
described,  the  Royal  African  Company  complamed  con- 
stantly about  the  favor  manifested  towards  interlopers  by 
the  West  Indian  colonies.     The  charter  of  the  Royal  Afri- 
can Company  prohibited  aU  other  EngKshmen  from  engag- 
ing in  trade  to  West  Af rica,^  and  in  return  for  this  monopoly 
the  Company  was  expected  to  build  and  to  maintain  forts 
and  trading  stations  out  of  its  own  funds.    It  was  generaUy 
admitted  that  such  forts  were  necessary,  partly  in  order  to 
control  the  savage  tribes  with  whom  the  trade  was  estab- 
lished, partly  because  the  rivaby  of  the  European  commer- 
cial nations  was  so  unbridled  in  non-European  regions  that 
short  shrift  would  have  been  aUowed  to  any  unprotected 
trader.3    The  annual  expenditure  of  the  Royal  African 

^  An  abstract  of  the  letters  received  by  the  Company  from  1683  to  1698 
shows  scarcely  any  from  Virginia.    Ibid. 

^  The  penalty  for  violating  this  prohibition  was  confiscation  of  the  ship 
and  cargo,  of  which  one-half  went  to  the  Crown  and  one-half  to  the  Com- 
pany.   C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  412. 

3  Cf.  Certain  Considerations  Relating  to  the  Royal  African  Company  of 
England  (London,  1680),  pp.  6,  7.  The  proclamation  of  1674  enjoining 
respect  for  the  Company's  monopoly  stated  that  "it  is  found  by  experience, 
That  Traffique  with  Infidells  &  Barbarous  Nations  not  in  Amity  with  vs 
and  who  are  not  holden  by  any  League  or  Treaty  cannot  bee  carryed  on 
without  the  EstabUshment  of  Forts  and  Factoryes  in  Places  conven- 
ient, The  mainteynance  whereof  requires  so  great  and  constant  expense 
that  itt  cannot  bee  otherwise  defreyed"  than  by  managing  the  trade 
by  a  joint  stock  company.     C.  O.  1/31,  80;   C.   C.  1669-1674,  p.   626; 

Bntish  Royal  Proclamations,  1603-1783  (Am.  Antiqu.  Society,  1911),  p. 
120. 

2B 


I 


r7 


\ 


p 


370 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Company  on  account  of  these  forts  was  between  £15,000 
and  £20,000/  which  amounted  to  from  £2  to  £3  a  negro. 
Thus  the  private  trader,  who  was  not  burdened  with  these 
charges,  had  a  considerable  initial  advantage  in  competing 
with  the  Company.  It  was  stated  at  the  time  that  the  col- 
onies might  possibly,  during  peace,  be  suppHed  at  ten  per 
cent  lower  rates  by  the  Dutch  traders  and  the  English 
interlopers,  but  it  was  pointed  out  that  no  negroes  could  be 
secured  from  these  sources  during  war.^  It  might  further 
have  been  argued  that,  without  these  forts,  the  EngHsh 
would  have  been  virtually  excluded  from  West  Africa,  and 
that  the  interloper  was  able  to  ply  his  trade  in  comparative 
safety  only  because  of  the  protection  indirectly  afforded  to 
all  of  English  nationality  by  the  Company's  estabUshments. 
Hence,  the  more  successful  and  numerous  the  private 
traders,  the  weaker  would  become  the  Company.  If  this 
were  the  line  of  development,  the  ultimate  result  would  be 
that  the  EngHsh  would  be  driven  from  Africa,  since  the 
public  finances  of  the  day  and  current  practice  in  such 
matters  would  not  allow  the  government  to  assume  the 
burden  of  maintaining  the  necessary  forts.  The  planta- 
tion colonies  would  then  have  been  at  the  mercy  of  their 
French  and  Dutch  rivals,  and  there  can  be  but  Uttle  doubt 
that  the  English  West  Indies  under  such  conditions  would 

*  In  1680,  the  Company  on  one  occasion  stated  that  this  charge  was 
about  £15,000,  and  on  another  £20,000.  P.  C.  Cal.  II,  p.  8;  C.  O.  391/3, 
ff.  228  et  seq.;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  625,  626.  In  a  pamphlet  published 
the  same  year,  this  amount  was  also  stated  to  be  £20,000.  Certain  Con- 
siderations Relating  to  the  Royal  African  Company  (London,  1680),  pp.  6, 7. 

2  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  466. 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    371 

have  had  to  pay  exorbitant  prices  for  their  labor  supply. 
It  was,  however,  unreasonable  to  expect  that  the  individual 
planter  or  merchant  in  the  colonies,  even  if  he  reahzed  the 
possibly  fatal  effects  of  encouraging  the  interlopers,  would 
as  a  rule  be  pubKc-spirited  enough  to  sacrifice  his  own 
immediate  interests  by  refraining  from  dealing  with  them. 
Consequently  these  private  traders  always  found  in  the 
West  Indies  a  ready,  though  clandestine,  market  for  their 
human  wares. 

In  1674,  the  Royal  African  Company  stated  in  a  peti- 
tion to  the  government  that  they  had  advice  that  several 
ships  from  New  England  and  the  other  colonies  and  also 
Dutch  and  other  foreigners  were,  with  the  consent  of  some 
of  the  governors,  importing  directly  into  the  colonies  negroes 
and  African  products,  and  prayed  the  King  to  issue  a 
proclamation  against  such  practices.^  A  proclamation  ^  to 
this  effect  was  accordingly  issued,  and  expUcit  letters  were 
also  written  to  the  colonial  governors  enjoining  strict  obedi- 
ence to  its  terms.' 

The  enforcement  of  this  proclamation  depended  mainly 
upon  the  activity  of  the  governors;^  and  in  Barbados,  where 

*  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  614-615. 

«  C.  O.  1/31,  80;   C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  626. 

'  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  616.  In  reply.  Governor  Leverett  of  Massachusetts 
wrote  that  none  of  their  adventurers  were  engaged  in  this  trade,  but  that 
some  from  England  and  Barbados,  who  had  been  on  this  voyage,  had  come 
to  New  England  to  have  their  vessels  repaired.  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  274, 
275. 

*  In  1679,  the  agent  in  Virginia,  John  Seayres,  wrote  to  the  Company 
that  the  best  way  to  prevent  interloping  was  to  "gett  yo^  affaires  Perticu- 
larly  recommended  by  the  Comiss'".^  of  his  Ma*'-^^  Customes  to  the  severall 


n 


372 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Ift 


I 


Mil 


the  interlopers  were  most  conspicuous,  the  chief  magistrate 
at  this  time  was  Sir  Jonathan  Atkins,  who,  uncritically 
accepting  all  the  colony's  complaints,  failed  to  support  the 
Royal  African  Company  in  enforcing  its  monopoly.    In 
1675,  the  Company's  agents  in  the  colony  wrote:    "Wee 
cannot  yet  find  a  meanes  to  prevent  the  presumption  of 
Interlopers  who  in  defiance  of  his  Ma,^'?'  Comands,  and  all 
wee  can  doe  thereupon  brave  vs  &  the  Authority  here.''  ^ 
The  following  year,  when  one  of  these  agents,  Edwyn  Stede, 
had  seized  such  an  interloper,  a  suit  was  brought  against 
him  for  the  recovery  of  treble  damages  imder  James  I's 
Statute  of  Monopolies.2    On  this  specific  score,  and  on  the 
general  ground  that  the  Governor  did  not  give  the  Company 
adequate  support  in  maintaining  inviolate  its  privileges,  a 
complaint  against  him  was  registered  in  England.    In  due 
course,  during  1676,  the  government  took  up  the  matter,  and 
Governor  Atkins  was  severely  rebuked  for  allowing  such 
legal  proceedings,^  and  was  instructed  in  the  future  to  secure 
the  Royal  African  Company  in  its  privileges  and  to  take 

Collectors  and  Officers  of  the  Customes  in  this  Collony  to  whom  they 
Yearly  send  new  Orders  or  else  by  a  particular  comand  from  the  Councell 
board  to  y^  Governor  and  all  other  Publique  Officers  here  to  w"^  they 
must  give  obedience  Although  they  haue  divers  ways  to  evade  the  comands 
of  y^  Proclamation."    African  Co.  Papers  i,  f.  13. 

1  C.  O.  1/35,  19;    C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  278,  279. 

2  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  496 ;  21  Jac.  I,  c.  3,  §  iv ;  W.  H.  Price,  The  EngUsh 
Patents  of  Monopoly,  pp.  135-141.  On  the  difficulties  encountered  by  the 
agents,  see  also  E.  D.  CoUins,  op.  cit.  in  Am.  Hist.  Assoc.  Report,  1900,  pp. 
173,  174- 

»  The  legal  advisers  of  the  government  all  held  that  there  was  no  ground 
for  such  action  under  this  statute  of  James  I.  George  Chalmers,  Opinions 
of  Eminent  Lawyers  (Burhngton,  1858),  pp.  580,  581. 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    373 

care  that  no  such  actions  at  law  in  contempt  of  its  charter 
were  permitted.^ 

At  the  same  time,  similar  instructions  were  sent  to  the 
other  colonial  governors,  including  Lord  Vaughan  of  Jamaica, 
whence  a  like  complaint  had  reached  England.  In  1676,  an 
interloping  vessel  with  three  hundred  negroes  had  been  seized 
at  the  request  of  the  Royal  African  Company's  agents  in 
Jamaica  and  then  libelled  in  the  local  Court  of  Admiralty. 
The  Judges,  however,  dismissed  the  case,  claiming  lack  of 
jurisdiction,  which  action  Dr.  Richard  Lloyd,  the  EngUsh 
expert  in  admiralty  law,  asserted  was  without  any  legal 
justification.^ 

Despite  these  imperative  instructions,  the  interdicted 
trade  could  not  be  suppressed.  Even  the  utmost  vigilance 
on  the  part  of  the  colonial  officials  would  not  have  been  able 
to  cope  with  the  schemes  devised  by  the  self-interest  of  the 
planters  and  merchants.  As  Governor  Atkins  of  Barbados 
said  in  1677,  all  the  diligence  in  the  world  could  not  prevent 
the  clandestine  landing  of  negroes  at  night.^  But,  in  addi- 
tion, a  number  of  the  colonial  ofiicials  were  personally 
interested  in  this  trade.  In  1677,  the  agents  in  Barbados 
wrote  to  the  Royal  African  Company  of  the  arrival  of  an 
interloping  vessel  with  ninety-eight  negroes,  stating  that 

» C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  359,  496,  497,  504,  S09-511;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp. 
655,  656,  680,  681;  C.  O.  324/2,  ff.  103-106.  In  his  defence,  Atkins 
wrote  early  in  1677  to  Secretary  Williamson  that  he  had  never  encouraged 
the  interlopers,  and  that,  while  he  had  the  King's  frigate  at  Barbados,  he 
had  seized  all  of  them.     C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  6,  7. 

2  Ibid.  1675-1676,  pp.  368,  369,  416,  418,  419. 

^  Ibid.  1677-1680,  p.  63.    Cf.  p.  94. 


I 


374 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


ID 


among  its  owners  were  the  Chief  Judge  and  one  of  the 
revenue  officials.  This,  they  added,  encouraged  other  peo- 
ple to  engage  in  this  trade,  since  they  saw  Hhose  that  sit 
in  great  places  and  live  by  the  King's  Commissions  presume 
to  act  as  they  do.'  ^  Occasionally  a  vessel  was  seized  and 
condemned,^  but  negroes  still  continued  to  be  landed 
in  Barbados  by  the  private  traders.^  In  the  beginning  of 
the  eighties,  there  also  developed  a  trade  of  bringing  negroes 
from  Madagascar.^  But,  as  this  island  was  not  within  the 
limits  of  the  Company's  charter,^  its  legal  privileges  were 
not  violated  thereby,  although  its  interests  were  adversely 

*  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  93.  On  the  interest  of  prominent  Barbadians 
in  this  trade,  see  African  Co.  Papers  i,  f.  7 ;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP.  145, 
146. 

*  Ibid.  1677-1680,  p.  183. 

3  On  the  trade  of  the  interlopers  in  Barbados,  Jamaica,  and  the  Leeward 
Islands  during  the  years  from  1677  to  1681,  see  African  Co.  Papers  i,  ff. 
I,  12,  26,  28,  41,  46,  48,  52,  53,  64,  75  et  passim.  On  some  of  the  methods 
employed  by  these  illicit  traders  to  evade  the  Enghsh  customs  regulations, 
see  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  685,  686,  691. 

*  Akeady  in  1676,  Randolph  reported  that  there  were  in  Massachusetts 
some  slaves  that  had  been  brought  in  the  colony's  ships  from  Madagascar. 
In  1679,  Robert  Holden  stated  that  a  ship  had  just  returned  to  Boston 
from  Madagascar,  after  landing  some  negroes  in  Jamaica.  The  following 
year,  Governor  Bradstreet  said  that  no  negroes  were  imported  into  Massa- 
chusetts, except  that  two  years  before  a  vessel  had  brought  40  or  50  from 
Madagascar.  Toppan,  Randolph  II,  pp.  225-259;  C.  O.  1/43,  71;  iUd. 
1/44,  61  i. 

^  In  1686,  a  vessel  from  Madagascar  with  negroes  and  merchandise  was 
permitted  to  enter  by  the  New  York  CoUector  of  the  Customs,  Lucas  San- 
ten.    Governor  Dongan  and  the  Surveyor  General  of  the  Customs,  Patrick  • 
Mein,  insisted,  however,  that  security  be  given  to  answer  any  claims  of/ 
either  the  Royal  African  or  the  East  India  Company.    C.  C»  1685-1688, 
pp.  220,  230-232,  253. 


I 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND   THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    375 

affected.^  In  1681,  Sir  Richard  Button,  the  Governor  of 
Barbados,  reported  that  the  Royal  African  Company  had 
imported  during  the  preceding  seven  years  about  2000 
negroes  annually,  and  that  many  had  also  been  brought 
from  Madagascar  and  by  the  interlopers.^  Dutton,  him- 
self, was  not  sufficiently  zealous  in  checking  the  interloping 
trade,  and  as  a  result,  in  1683,  the  English  government 
judged  it  necessary  to  admonish  him  to  observe  strictly 
the  instructions  already  issued  and  to  use  greater  diligence 
in  the  future.^ 

In  the  other  colonies  also,  the  interlopers  were  assured  of 
a  good  reception  from  the  planters  and  merchants.  Even  in 
a  colony  where  slavery  had  as  yet  attained  so  insignificant 
an  extension  as  in  Virginia,  some  negroes  were  sold  by  these 
illicit  traders.^  In  the  Leeward  Islands,  naturally,  this 
trade  was  more  considerable.  In  1680,  serious  complaints 
were  received  from  the  African  Company  that  violence  had 
been  offered  to  their  agent  in  Nevis.^    Two  years  later, 

^  On  April  9,  1681,  the  Barbados  agents  wrote  to  the  Company:  "Wee 
are  apprehensive  the  Trade  that  is  of  Late  drove  to  Madagascar  for  Negroes 
w''^  they  bring  hither  may  in  time  be  some  Inconvenience  to  the  Companys 
trade ; .  And  as  it  is  noe  small  quantitie  have  been  imported  being  between 
900  &  1000  that  have  been  brought  &  sold  here  in  about  2  mo^  time,  soe  that 
if  noe  remedy  be  found  they  and  the  Intf  lop^  will  give  a  full  supply  of 
negr^  to  this  place."    African  Co.  Papers  i,  f.  S>^, 

^  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  70-72. 

'  The  instructions  referred  to  had  been  issued  in  1680  to  Governor  Atkins. 
P.  C.  Cal.  II,  p.  8 ;  C.  O.  29/3,  f.  75 ;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  73-75,  i45,  146, 
SZ^SZ^,  480. 

*C.  O.  5/1308,  13;  African  Co.  Papers  12,  f.  149;  Bruce,  Economic 
History  II,  p.  85. 

^  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  570,  571,  579,  580,  583,  584. 


11 

(I 

■» 


' 


376 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


an  interloper  was  seized  at  St.  Kitts  by  a  ship  of  the  navy, 
but  as  the  illegal  traffic  still  continued,  peremptory  in- 
structions had  to  be  sent  in  1683  to  Governor  Stapleton  to 
use  his  utmost  efforts  to  suppress  it.^  From  1685  on,  the 
ships  of  the  navy  on  this  station  were  active  in  hunting  down 
interlopers,  several  of  which  were  seized  and  condemned.^ 
At  this  time,  some  of  the  chief  men  in  Nevis  and  St.  Kitts 
proposed  to  buy  negroes  from  the  Dutch  in  St.  Eustatius, 
arguing  that  this  would  be  legal,  provided  the  slaves  were 
imported  in  English  vessels,  since  the  Company's  charter 
merely  prohibited  private  trading  by  Englishmen  to  Africa. 
The  agents  of  the  Company  in  Nevis  wrote  to  England 
about  this  scheme,  pointing  out  that  it  would  be  most 
prejudicial,  since  it  might  lead  to  the  Dutch  estabhshing  a 
magazine  for  negroes  at  St.  Eustatius,  whence  the  EngHsh 
colonies  could  draw  their  supplies.^  The  African  Company 
forthwith  laid  the  case  before  the  government;  and,  in  re- 
sponse to  their  complaint,  the  Lords  of  Trade  in  1687  in- 
structed the  Governor,  Sir  Nathaniel  Johnson,  not  to  coun- 
tenance this  trade.*  These  importations  into  Nevis  could 
not,  however,  be  totally  stopped.^ 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  243,  480. 

*  Ibid.  168 5-1688,  pp.  86,  125,  147 ;  C.  O.  iss/i,  ff.  43-53.  In  1688,  an 
interloper  from  Bristol  was  seized  and  condemned  at  Montserrat.  Blath- 
wayt,  Journal  I,  f.  304. 

«  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  216. 

*  Ibid.  pp.  362,  398,  404. 

*  In  1688,  Governor  Johnson  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  that  one  Crispe 
was  represented  by  the  officers  of  the  customs  and  by  those  of  the  African 
Company  *  as  a  persistent  smuggler  of  negroes  and  sugar  to  and  from  the 
Dutch  islands.'    Ibid.  p.  552.     See  also  ibid.  pp.  505,  553. 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    377 

In  Jamaica  also,  the  Company  had  to  contend  with  the 
interlopers.^    As  in  the  other  colonies,  careful  instructions 
were  issued  against  trading  with  them,^  and  occasionally 
an  interloping  vessel  was  seized  by  the  ships  of  the  navy 
stationed  at  Jamaica  and  then  condemned  in  the  Admiralty 
Court.3    It  was   admitted  in    1681,   however,   that   some 
interlopers  had  managed  to  escape  the  vigilance  of  the  offi- 
cials and  to  land  their  negroes.^    In  one  of  his  despatches  of 
that  year,  Sir  Henry  Morgan  wrote  that,  during  the  tempo- 
rary absence  of  the  frigate,  four  such  ships  had  in  two  weeks 
successfully  landed  their  prohibited  negroes.^    The  compara- 
tively large  extent  of  the  trade  at  this  time  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  island  was  then  poorly  supplied  by  the  Royal 
African    Company.    Morgan  predicted  that  '  the  interlop- 
ing commerce  would  fall  of  itself,'  if  this  condition  were 
remedied.^    In  this  he  was  undoubtedly  correct.    But  until 
1684,  when  the  colony's  dispute  with  the  Company  about 
the  price  of  negroes  was  adjusted,  interlopers  came  not 
infrequently  to  Jamaica.     In  fact.  Governor  Lynch  even 
permitted   the  sale  of  negroes  from  this  source  to  the 

*  In  1674,  when  the  Dutch  war  was  interfering  with  the  Company's 
operations,  Jamaica  had  even  passed  a  law  allowing  the  free  importation  of 
negroes  in  ships  qualified  under  the  Act  of  Navigation.  This  law,  naturaUy, 
was  not  confirmed  in  England.  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  564;  E.  D.  Collins,' 
op.  cit.  pp.  163,  164. 

2  For  the  instructions  issued  by  the  governors  to  their  subordinate  offi- 
cials, see  Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  2724,  f.  i ;  ibid.  2728  B,  f.  193. 

3  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  5,    . 
^  Ibid. 

^  Ibid.  pp.  21,  22. 
^  Ibid.  pp.  72,  73. 


kh 


378 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Spanish  traders.  Thereafter,  however,  despite  occasional 
complaints,^  there  was  relatively  little  trouble  on  this  score. 
As  a  result  of  the  clandestine  nature  of  the  interloping 
trade,  it  is  naturally  impossible  to  state  in  precise  quanti- 
tative terms  its  proportion  to  that  of  the  Royal  African 
Company.  But  the  data  available  unquestionably  warrant 
the  conclusion  that  the  illicit  importations  were  far  less  than 
those  of  the  privileged  Company,  and  apparently  a  ratio 
of  one  to  four  would  be  a  fairly  close  approximation  to  the 
truth.  Yet  the  Company  suffered  severely  from  the  compe- 
tition of  the  private  traders,  mainly  because  their  activities 
greatly  raised  the  original  price  of  the  negroes  in  Africa.^ 
In  1679,  it  was  stated  in  a  letter  to  the  Company  from  Cape 
Corso  Castle  that  there  were  a  great  munber  of  mterlopers 
on  the  Gold  Coast,  who  "gave  such  extravagant  rates  for 
Slaves  (and  there  is  so  few  upon  the  Coast)."  ^  As  a  result, 
the  Company  was  not  able  to  furnish  the  colonies  with  slaves 
at  the  prices  set  by  the  EngUsh  government.  Moreover, 
the  higher  prices  secured  were,  towards  the  end  of  the 
eighties,  showing  a  diminishing  margin  of  profit.  Already 
at  this  time  were  evident  signs  of  the  financial  difficulties 
that  later  beset  the  Company.* 

*  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  157,  216,  299,  300,  339. 

*  African  Co.  Papers  i,  f.  119;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  370. 
'  African  Co.  Papers  i,  f.  50. 

*  In  1686,  the  Company  stated  that  they  had  struggled  under  great  diffi- 
culties to  support  the  great  expense  of  maintaining  their  forts  and  factories, 
whereby  they  had  kept  the  African  trade  from  falling  wholly  into  the  hands 
of  the  Dutch ;  but  that  they  had  gained  little  for  themselves,  owing  to  the 
interlopers  who,  in  spite  of  the  orders  issued  by  the  government,  succeeded 


THE  SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    379 

From  the  standpoint  of  public  policy,  however,  the  Royal 
African  Company  had  accomplished  its  purpose.  It  had 
firmly  estabhshed  English  interests  in  West  Africa  and 
had  become  an  influential  factor  in  the  slave-trade.  The 
EngHsh  colonies  were  no  longer  dependent  upon  foreigners 
for  their  labor  supply,  and,  in  addition,  some  share  of  the 
valuable  Spanish-American  trade  had  been  secured.  But 
these  results  had  been  attained  only  at  the  cost  of  con- 
siderable friction  with  the  West  Indian  colonies.  These 
colonies  constantly  owed  the  Company  large  amounts*  and, 
as  is  usual  in  the  case  of  the  habitual  debtor,  were  prone  to 
regard  their  creditor  as  an  imconscionable  oppressor.  The 
English  government  firmly  supported  the  Company  as  the 
organ  which  was  to  carry  into  effect  an  important  national 
policy.  The  colonial  governors  were  placed  in  a  deUcate 
position,  because  their  imperative  instructions  from  Eng- 
land ran  diametrically  coxmter  to  pubHc  sentiment  in  the 
colonies.  According  to  a  contemporary  writer,  if  the 
Governor  were  "zealous  for  the  Company,  hee  loses  the 
Country,  and  if  hee  favour  the  Country,  to  which  hee  is 
necessitated  by  his  interest,  hee  as  certainly  loses  the  Com- 
pany and  is  slandered,  as  one  guilty  of  Tricks,  w'.^  destroys 
him  at  Court."  ^  Thus  in  1677,  Sir  Jonathan  Atkins,  the 
Governor  of  Barbados,  complained  to  the  Lords  of  Trade 
that  the  merchants  upon  the  Exchange  and  the  Gumea 

in  landing  their  negroes  in  remote  ports  and  creeks.    C.  C.  1685-1688, 

p.  257. 

1  Certain  Considerations  Relating  to  the  Royal  African  Company  of 

England  (London,  1680),  p.  5. 

2  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  466. 


38o 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


i 


Company  took  it  upon  themselves  in  some  measure  to  be 
Governors  of  Barbados,  and  that,  having  so  many  masters, 
he  knew  not  whom  to  please.^    It  was  not  only  in  this  case, 
where  Atkins  was  clearly  at  fault,^  that  the  government 
decided  in  favor  of  the  Company;  but,  in  general,  its  privi- 
leges were  vigorously  supported  in  England.     The  colonies 
were,  however,  not  placed  at  its  mercy,  for  the  government 
was  ready  to  listen  to  all  complaints  and  saw  to  it  that 
negroes  were  furnished  in  adequate  quantities  and  at  reason- 
able prices.    So  persistent,  however,  was  the  opposition  to 
the  Company  that,  in  order  to  secure  its  privileges,  it  was 
found  necessary  to  appoint  its  agents  in  the  colonies  to 
important  positions.     Without  some  official  voice  m  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  colonies,  the  Company  would  have  been 
most  inadequately  supported.    Thus  one  of  the  Company's 
agents,  Robert  Bevin,  was  appointed  in  1673  to  be  the  first 
Collector  of  the  Customs  in  Barbados;^  and,  the  following 
year,  Edwyn  Stede,  another  agent,  succeeded  him  in  this 
post.^    In  1684,  Edwyn  Stede  and  Stephen  Gascoigne,  the 
two  representatives  of  the  Company,  were  appointed  the 
commissioners  of  the  four  and  a  half  per  cent  revenue  and 
were  entrusted  with  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  of  trade.^ 
Towards  the  end  of  this  period,  as  Deputy-Governor,  Stede 
was  for  a  time  in  complete  charge  of  affairs.     Similarly, 
before  his  appointment  as  Governor  of  Jamaica,  Sir  Thomas 

1  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  150.  3  cal.  Treas.  Books,  1672-1675,  p.  427. 

2  Ihid.  pp.  206,  207.  ■»  Ibid.  p.  580. 

5  Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  9,  f.  43.  SimUarly,  the  commis- 
sioners of  this  revenue  in  the  Leeward  Islands,  Carpenter  and  Belchamber, 
were  also  the  agents  of  the  Company.     C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  505. 


THE   SLAVE-TRADE  AND  THE  PLANTATION  COLONIES    381 

Modyford  had  represented  the  African  Company's  interests 
in  Barbados.  Moreover,  one  of  the  agents  in  Jamaica, 
Render  Molesworth,  was  appointed  Lieutenant-Governor  of 
the  colony.  On  the  death  of  Sir  Thomas  Lynch,  he  be- 
came the  acting  chief  magistrate;  and,  in  1689,  he  was 
appointed  Governor  of  the  island.^ 

^  C.  C.  1689-1692,  f.  69. 


It 


'4      ' 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 

This  book  is  due  on  the  date  indicated  below,  or  at  the 
expiration  of  a  definite  period  after  the  date  of  borrowing,  as 
provided  by  the  library  rules  or  by  special  arrangement  with 
the  Librarian  in  charge. 


DATE    BORROWED 

DATE    DUE 

DATE    BORROWED 

DATE    DUE           1 

M> 

*'     JL    4 

1 

C28(955)100MEE 

1 

I  D997.3 
I  B39 


Boer,  George  Louis 


The  old  colonial  system. 
1660-1754t 


^^^^   Tc?/^ 


>KTe//7 


of /J J' a 

m 


"^I^WBB       c^ 


AP^     ftWRR 


tC\^K  066'i3 


f  "3  1 G  1C59 


APR  ^  ems 


4icti(j<)l  of  Business  Library 
Columbia  University 


[own 


intiit€\tjf(itlSlmfoxk 


13? 
V.2 


LIBRARY 


School  of  Business 


Given  by 

Thui^man  Vv.Van  Metre 


ill 

I 

I* 


i 


rt« 


V 


'4i 


MAR  *^  ^  '""'^ 


^:^'  SL ' ; 


S 


^W 


.     I 


) 


THE   OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 

I 660-1 754 
Part  I.  — Vol.  1 1. 


Jtg^><9>^o 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

HEW  YORK   •   BOSTON  •   CHICAGO 
DALLAS  •   SAN   FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Limited 

LONDON  •   BOMBAY  •   CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  Ltd. 

TORONTO 


\^ 


ll 


THE 

OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 

1660-1754 


BY 


GEORGE    LOUIS    BEER 

AUTHOR  OF  "BRITISH  COLONIAL  POLICY,    I754-I765/'  "THE  ORIGINS 
OF  THE  BRITISH  COLONIAL  SYSTEM,   I578-1660" 


PART   I 

THE   ESTABLISHMENT   OF   THE  SYSTEM 

1660-168  8 


IN   TWO   VOLUMES 

VOL.  II 


THE   MACMI'LLAi4   COMPANY 


^ll  ri^Lts  renrved 


INFORMATION    OBSCURED 


o 

cu 

CO 


COPYRICJHT,  I913, 
BY  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY. 


Set  up  and  elcctrotyped.   Published  January,  1913. 


•  •  • 


••• 

•  • 


•  •  • ' 


•••  •'• 


••••.• 


•  •  •  • 


•  •    • 
•  •     •  •  <  • 

.    •   •  •     •  • 


« 

•a 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER   VI 

Barbados  and  the  Leeward  Islands 

The  sugar  trade  —  Barbados's  objections  to  the  policy 
of  enumeration  —  Futile  attempt  to  raise  the  price  of  sugar 
by  means  of  a  monopoly  —  Protests  of  the  Willoughbys  and 
Governor  Atkins  against  the  commercial  regulations  —  The 
English  government's  refusal  to  change  the  laws  —  Analy- 
sis of  the  colony's  grievances  —  Illegal  trade  in  Barbados 
—  The  Leeward  Islands  —  Their  development  —  Illegal 
trade  —  Attitude  towards  the  colonial  system. 


CHAPTER  Vn 

Jamaica  and  the  Outlying  Islands 


PAGB 

X 


47 


Great  expectations  f  om  Jamaica  —  Its  economic  devel- 
opment—  The  buccaneers  and  their  suppression — The 
logwood  trade  and  the  difficulties  with  Spain  — The  enu- 
meration of  logwood  —  Growth  of  the  colony  —  Illegal  trade 

—  The  settlement  of  the  Bahamas  and  their  development 

—  The  Bermudas  —  Their  struggle  with  the  proprietary 
Company  and  its  downfall. 

CHAPTER  Vin 
Virginia  and  Maryland .105 

English  policy  towards  the  colonial  tobacco  industry  — 
Virginia  under  the  laws  of  trade  —  Criticisms  of  John 
Bland  and  Sir  William  Berkeley  —  Attitude  of  the  colony  — 
Attempts  to  restrict  the  tobacco  output  and  to  diversify 
Virginia's  economic  life  — Bacon's  rebellion  —  The  causes 


.V 


VI 


CONTENTS 

of  the  social  unrest  —  Economic  development  of  Virginia 
—  Illegal  trade  —  Maryland  —  Quarrels  with  the  customs 
officials  —  Their  significance. 


CHAPTER  DC 


The  Carolinas 


The  economic  aims  of  the  proprietors  —  Foundation  of 
South  Carolina  —  Its  development  —  Piracy  —  Character 
of  North  Carolina  —  The  New  England  traders  —  Attempts 
to  collect  the  1673  export  duties  on  tobacco  —  The  Cul- 
pepper rebellion. 


CHAPTER  X 


Newfoundland 


The  fishing  regulations  —  Disputes  between  the  settlers 
and  the  English  fishermen  —  Agitation  for  the  appointment 
of  a  royal  governor  —  The  decision  to  remove  the  settlers 

—  Sir   John   Berry's   reports   reopen   the   question  —  The 
planters  are  allowed  to  remain,  but  no  governor  is  appointed 

—  The   colony  and  the   laws   of  trade  —  New  England's 
trade  to  Newfoimdland  —  Development  of  the  fishery. 


PAGB 


177 


\ 


201 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  XII 

The  Dominion  of  New  England 

Attitude  of  Massachusetts  on  the  loss  of  the  charter  — 
English  plans  for  the  political  reconstruction  of  New  England 
—  The  failure  of  royal  government  in  New  Hampshire  and 
the  situation  there— New  Plymouth,  Rhode  Island,  and 
Connecticut  —  Joseph  Dudley's  administration  and  that  of 
Andros  —  The  English  government's  plan  to  reorganize  all 
the  charter  colonies  —  Inclusion  of  the  Jerseys  and  New 
York  in  the  Dominion  —  New  York's  development  as  an 
English  colony. 


vu 


VAGB 


CHAPTER  XI 


Massachusetts 


England's  attitude  towards  the  New  England  colonies  — 
Massachusetts's  view  of  the  imperial  relation  —  The  situa- 
tion in  1660  —  The  royal  Commissioners  of  1664  —  The 
claims  of  Mason  and  Gorges  —  New  England's  irregular 
trading  threatens  the  integrity  of  the  colonial  system  — 
Edward  Randolph's  mission  in  1676  —  His  reports  and  the 
beginnings  of  the  movement  to  abrogate  the  Massachusetts 
charter  —  Randolph  appointed  Collector  of  the  Customs  in 
New  England  —  His  difficulties  in  enforcing  the  laws  — 
Extent  of  illegal  trade  — The  Massachusetts  Naval  Office 
Act  —  Abrogation  of  the  charter  —  Summary. 


230 


\ 


CHAPTER  VI 

BARBADOS  AND  THE  LEEWARD  ISLANDS 

The  sugar  trade  —  Barbados's  objections  to  the  policy  of  enumeration  — 
Futile  attempt  to  raise  the  price  of  sugar  by  means  of  a  monopoly  — 
Protests  of  the  Willoughbys  and  Governor  Atkins  against  the  commercial 
regulations  —  The  English  government's  refusal  to  change  the  laws  — 
Analysis  of  the  colony's  grievances  —  Illegal  trade  in  Barbados  —  The 
Leeward  Islands  —  Their  development  —  Illegal  trade  —  Attitude  to- 
wards the  colonial  system. 

The  Restoration  commercial  system,  in  particular  the 
enumeration  of  sugar  under  the  law  of  1660  and  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Staple  Act  of  1663,  meant  a  far  more  stringent 
control  of  the  commerce  of  the  West  Indian  colonies  than 
had  prevailed  during  the  CromweUian  era.  Under  the 
Act  of  1650,  foreign  ships  were  not  allowed  to  trade  to  the 
English  colonies ;  but  all  colonial  products  could  be  sent  in 
EngHsh  bottoms  directly  to  any  market  whatsoever,  and 
such  carriers  could  also  bring  to  the  colonies  European 
goods  from  places  other  than  England.^  The  more  restric- 
tive system  of  the  Restoration  period  was  put  into  effect 
at  a  most  inopportune  moment  —  just  when  the  enormous 
profits  of  the  early  years  of  the  sugar  industry  were  rapidly 
disappearing,  in  consequence  of  the  ever  increasing  output  of 
the  EngKsh  and  foreign  colonies.  The  almost  perpendicular 
fall  in  the  price  of  sugar  was  fundamentally  due  to  this 
large  increase  in  supply,  in  combination  with  a  much  more 

*  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  384  et  seq, 
^  X  (2) 


2  THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 

slowly  expanding  demand.  The  bonanza  years  were  giving 
way  to  a  period  of  more  normal  industry,  during  which  the 
selling  price  tended  to  bear  some  more  or  less  approximate 
«  relation  to  the  cost  of  production.  While  this  process  was 
going  on,  and  some  time  before  it  would  normally  have 
reached  its  inevitable  conclusion,  the  English  government 
adopted  the  comprehensive  restrictive  commercial  system, 
which  aggravated  the  hardships  inseparably  connected  with 
an  economic  readjustment  of  this  nature.  As  a  result,  the 
chief  of  the  sugar  colonies,  Barbados,  complained  bitterly, 
and,  forgetting,  or  not  reaUzing,  that  the  fundamental  cause 
of  the  lower  prices  for  sugar  was  the  increased  production,^ 
tended  to  attribute  it  solely  or  mainly  to  the  policy  of  the 
English  government.^ 

This  colony  insistently  opposed  the  system  adopted  for 
carrying  on  the  slave-trade,  claiming  that  it  raised  the  cost  of 
their  indispensable  labor.  Constant  objections  were  made 
to  the  four  and  a  half  per  cent  duty  on  the  alleged  ground 
that  this  revenue  was  diverted  from  the  colony's  public  ser- 
vices. Moreover,  the  English  schedule  of  sugar  duties  im- 
posed in  1660  was  not  wholly  satisfactory  to  the  planters; 
and  when,  in  1685,  a  heavy  additional  tax  was  imposed,  the 
economic  ruin  of  the  colony  was  confidently  predicted. 
Finally,  Barbados  strenuously  opposed  some  of  the  provi- 

»  A  few  years  before  the  Restoration,  it  was  stated  that  the  price  of  raw 
sugar  in  Barbados  was,  at  the  lowest,  285.  a  cwt.  Richard  Ligon,  A  True  and 
Exact  History  of  Barbados  (London,  1657),  p.  95.  In  1670,  the  price  was 
125.  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  ff.  639-641 ;  C.  O.  1/26,  57 ;  ibid. 
31/2,  ff.  54  et  seq.;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  533,  534. 

2  Brit.  Mus.,  Stowe  MSS.  3662,  f.  59a  reversed. 


BARBADOS  AND  THE  LEEWARD  ISLANDS  3 

sions  embodied  in  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation.  Thus, 
throughout  this  entire  period,  the  colony  was  incessantly 
complaining  of  this  or  that  phase  of  English  policy.  In 
these  complaints  there  was  that  marked  tendency  to  over- 
accentuate  all  unfavorable  features,  which  is  a  character- 
istic of  all  periods  of  falling  prices.  The  colony  was  in  a 
decidedly  pessimistic  and  querulous  mood.  In  addition, 
as  is  seemingly  inevitable  in  all  statements  made  by  inter- 
ested parties  to  influence  the  government,  the  facts  pre- 
sented were  not  only  those  most  favorable  to  the  cause 
advocated,  but  they  were  also  at  times  grossly,  and 
apparently  wilfully,  inaccurate. 

In  Barbados,  at  the  time  of  the  Restoration,  sugar  had 
to  a  great  extent  displaced  the  earlier  crops  of  tobacco  and 
cotton,^  and  the  colony's  welfare  was  intimately  bound  up 
with  the  sugar  trade.  Its  main  interest  in  the  Navigation 
Act  of  1660  was  in  the  clauses  enumerating  sugar.  In  1661, 
the  Barbados  government  stated  that  they  would  enforce 
this  Act,  but  at  the  same  time  they  forwarded  a  petition  to 
the  Council  for  Foreign  Plantations,  stating  that  sugar, 
their  'chief  and  almost  only  manufacture,'  commanded  so 
inconsiderable  a  price  that  many  would  be  forced  to  leave 
the  island.  They  argued  that  the  new  Act,  by  forcing  all 
their  sugar  into  one  market,  would  cause  a  glut  'and  a  still 
further  fall'  in  its  value,  and  therefore  prayed  for  permission 

*  In  1 66 1,  the  colony  stated  that  sugar  was  the  principal  commodity; 
'some  parts  afford  cotton,  the  country  is  too  barren  for  mdigo,  and  ginger 
(at  the  present  price)  is  not  worth  planting.'  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  84. 
On  sugar  and  cotton  in  this  colony,  see  also  Davies,  The  History  of  Barbados, 
S*  Christophers,  etc.  (London,  1666),  pp.  9,  198. 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


to  ship  their  produce  to  any  market  whatsoever  on  giving 
security  to  pay  the  lawful  customs.^     In  addition,  very 
shortly  thereafter,  the  President  and  the  Council  (the  As- 
sembly refused  to  join,  judging  the  moment  imfavorable)  sent 
a  similar  petition  to  the  King  and  at  the  same  time  wrote 
to  the  Secretary  of  State.^    In  this  letter,  they  stated  that 
their  lands  were  already  becoming  less  fertile  and  yielded 
poorer  and  less  sugar ;  that  the  people  were,  as  a  rule,  not 
prosperous,  but  being  vainglorious,  made  an  ostentation 
of  riches  which  they  did  not  possess;    that  the  planters 
were  generally  indebted  to  the  merchants,  and  that  sugar 
was  then  "of  no  price  worth  making."    Furthermore,   it 
was  pointed  out  that  the  sugars  shipped  by  the  planters 
to  England  yielded  only  contemptible  returns,  for  the  Eng- 
lish merchants  'having  us  in  their  power  that  we  can  send 
sugars  nowhere  else,  give  us  what  they  please,  and  soe 
having  the  market  in   themselves  .  .  .  make  us    simple 
planters  only  the  property  of  their  gain,  and  sell  the  poor 
for  bread  and  the  rich  for  shoes.'    Therefore,  they  begged 
to  be  released  from  the  enumeration  clauses  of  the  Naviga- 
tion Act,  and  lest  the  King's  revenue  should  suffer,  they 
proposed  that  there  be  established  at  Barbados  a  custom- 
house, where  should  be  collected  on  all  sugars  exported 
to  foreign   countries   in    legally    qualified    vessels    duties 
equivalent  to  one-half  of  the  EngUsh  subsidy  of  1660.^ 

*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  84,  85. 

« C.  O.  1/15,  69-71;  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  ff.  305  et  seq.; 
C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  127,  129. 

3  This  was  equivalent  to  the  amount  such  sugars  would  have  paid  if 
shipped  via  England. 


BARBADOS  AND  THE  LEEWARD  ISLANDS  5 

At  about  the  same  time,  the  government  also  received  a 
petition  from  the  Barbados  planters,  merchants,  and  trad- 
ers,^ who  stated  that  'scarce  any  island  in  the  world  yields 
so  great  a  revenue  or  employs  so  much  shipping  and  stock,' 
and  that  its  destruction  would  not  only  spell  their  ruin,  but 
would  also  gravely  prejudice  England's  shipping  and  the 
customs  revenue.  But  such,  they  said, '  has  been  the  increase 
and  unmerchantableness  of  the  sugars  lately  made '  that  its 
value  is  utterly  destroyed,  'not  yielding  above  one  or  two 
and  twenty  shillings  per  hundred.'  ^  As  a  means  of  rais- 
ing the  price  and  improving  the  quality,  they  suggested  that 
no  one  should  be  allowed  to  sell  merchantable  sugar  for  less 
than  thirty  shillings  a  hundredweight,  the  rate  at  which 
sugar  was  valued  in  the  English  tariff  of  1660. 

This  suggestion  did  not  meet  with  an  imfavorable  recep- 
tion, because  just  at  this  tune  some  English  merchants, 
with  the  support  of  the  government,  were  trying  to  make 
arrangements  to  monopolize  the  European  sugar  trade. 
They  were  willing  to  buy  the  entire  English  colonial  crop 
at  a  fixed  price,  and  also  proposed  to  secure  control  of  that 
of  Brazil.3    The  Council  of  Foreign  Plantations,  to  whom 

^  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  130;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  314. 

2  They  stated  that  formerly  raw  sugar  had  sold  in  England  for  £3  10s. 
the  cwt.  In  1663,  in  a  letter  to  WiUoughby,  Charles  II  also  stated  that 
excessive  planting  was  the  cause  of  the  low  prices.  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no. 
576. 

3  Prior  to  the  cultivation  of  sugar  in  the  EngKsh  West  Indies,  the  great 
source  of  supply  was  Brazil.  On  the  expulsion  of  the  Dutch,  onerous  taxes 
were  imposed  by  the  reinstated  Portuguese,  and  at  the  same  time  Brazil 
had  to  compete  with  the  newly  developed  sources  of  supply  in  the  West 
Indies.    As  a  result,  according  to  a  memorial  written  in  1668,  the  Brazilian 


f 


6  .      THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 

the  petition  of  the  Barbados  traders  had  been  referred,  re- 
ported on  August  19,  1661,  that  a  letter  should  be  written 
by  the  King,  acquainting  Barbados  with  the  overtures  made 
by  these  merchants  to  buy  their  sugars  at  such  rates  as  would 
make  the  planters  comfortable  and  ordering  the  convening 
of  an  Assembly  to  consider  these  proposals.^  In  order  to 
carry  into  effect  the  Portuguese  section  of  the  scheme,  Sir 
Richard  Fanshaw,  who  was  at  this  time  sent  as  Ambassador 
to  Portugal,  was  instructed  to  make  careful  inquiries  about 
the  sugar  situation  there,  with  the  special  object  of  ascertain- 
ing "whether  it  may  be  practicable  that  the  English  may 
engross  to  themselves  the  sole  trade  of  sugar,  taking  the 
whole  commodity  at  a  price,  and  we  being  bound  to  send 
our  fleet  to  Brazil,  and  therewith  to  convoy  such  a  propor- 
tion of  sugar  to  Portugal  as  shall  every  year  be  assigned  to 
that  consimiption,  and  may  then  transport  the  rest  whither 
shall  seem  best."  ^ 

This  far-reaching  scheme  resulted  in  nothing.  Portugal 
was  by  no  means  inclined  to  enter  upon  such  an  arrange- 

exports  to  Europe  fell  off  from  70,000  chests  yearly  to  20,000,  and  the  Eng- 
hsh  seemed  to  be  in  a  fair  way  to  monopolize  the  sugar  trade.  Memorial 
on  the  sugar  trade,  endorsed  September,  1668,  in  Public  Record  Office, 
Shaftesbury  Papers,  Section  X ;   Bodleian,  Rawlinson  MSS.,  A  478,  f.  88. 

*  C.  O.  1/14,  59,  ff.  37,  38;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  158. 

^  In  conclusion  the  instruction  read:  "You  have  had  so  much  said  to 
you  upon  this  argument  by  those  who  manage  that  design  that  there  need 
be  no  more  enlargement  upon  it  in  this  place."  Section  5  of  the  instructions 
to  Fanshaw,  Aug.  23,  1661.  Heathcote  MSS.  (H.M.C.  1899),  p.  19.  On 
Dec.  6,  1661,  Clarendon  wrote  to  Fanshaw:  "You  are  enough  instructed 
in  the  business  of  the  sugar  to  make  at  least  such  approaches  to  it  as  to 
discover  what  is  practicable  in  that  kind."    Ihid.  pp.  23,  24. 


BARBADOS  AND  THE  LEEWARD  ISLANDS  7 

ment;^  and  the  negotiations  with  Barbados  were  deferred 
imtil  the  future  poUtical  status  of  the  colony  was  definitely 
settled.  Finally,  when  in  1663  Lord  Willoughby  was  sent 
out  as  Governor,  he  was  instructed  to  lay  this  matter  before 
the  colony,  and,  if  a  reasonable  price  could  be  agreed  upon, 
the  King  promised  to  "recommend  it  in  such  manner  to  a 
Body  of  good  and  substantiall  Merchants,  that  the  whole 
Growth  of  Sugars  shall  be  taken  off."^  Thirty  years  before 
this,  imder  similar  circumstances,  a  number  of  attempts  to 
raise  the  price  of  Virginia  tobacco  by  such  means  had 
utterly  failed.^  Experience  had  shown  that  it  was  impossible 
for  the  English  merchants  and  the  colonial  planters  to  agree 
upon  a  mutually  satisfactory  price.  Willoughby,  apparently, 
saw  the  futiUty  of  any  such  attempt  and  did  not  waste  his 
energies  on  it.  Instead,  having  large  interests  in  Barbados 
as  well  as  in  his  own  proprietary  colony  at  Surinam,  where 
sugar  was  also  produced,^  he  fully  adopted  the  viewpoint 

*  Eventually,  this  part  of  the  scheme  dwindled  down  to  an  attempt  to 
secure  permission  for  the  Duke  of  York  to  send  three  ships  to  Brazil  to 
fetch  sugar.  Concerning  this,  Fanshaw  wrote,  in  1663,  that  he  had  put 
the  matter  in  the  hands  of  the  King's  favorite,  but  that  it  had  to  be  laid 
before  the  Council,  who  of  late  have  objected  to  granting  such  Kcenses, 
even  though  paid  for,  beUeving  them  to  be  detrimental  to  Portugal.  Ihid. 
pp.  123,  124. 

*  The  instruction  stated  that  Willoughby  had  been  present  "at  seuerall 
Debates  in  Our  Councill  of  Plantations  upon  the  finding  some  Expedient, 
by  which  both  Merchant  and  Planter  might  be  encouraged  in  carrying  on 
the  Trade  and  Manufacture  of  Sugars,  and  preventing  the  same  from 
being  become  a  Drugg  of  smaU  value."  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  360,  361 ;  C.  C. 
1661-1668,  no.  489. 

'  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  152  et  seq, 

*  C.  C.  i66i-i668,  no.  83. 


I  f 


i! 


ii 


8 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Of  the  colonial  planters  and  complained  bitterly  of  the 
restrictions  imposed  on  the  sugar  trade. 

On  September  lo,  1663,'  shortly  after 'his  arrival  in  the 
colony,  Lord  WiUoughby  wrote  to  Charles  II  that  he  hoped 
some  relief  might  be  granted  by  relaxmg  the  Navigation 
Act,  and  a  few  weeks  later  he  reported  that  otherwise  the 
colomes  would  all  be  ruined.^    The  foUowing  year,  he  agam 
wrote  of  the  iU  effects  of  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation.^ 
At  this  time  events  were  mevitably  leading  to  war  with  the 
Umted  Provinces.    In  this  conflict,  the  French  joined  hands 
with  their  Dutch  allies,  and,  as  a  result  of  this  combination 
the  EngUsh  West  Indies  were  exposed  to  disastrous  assaults 
and  then-  commerce  was  grievously  harassed.     On  May  12 
1666,0  WiUoughby  sent  to  Charles  II  a  vigorous  and  frank 
expression  of  his  views.    The  French,  he  wrote,  had  captured 
the  English  part  of  St.  Kitts,  and  Nevis  was  about  to  sur- 
render to  them,  so  that  he  feared  for  the  safety  of  Barbados 
that  fair  jeweU  of  your  Majesty's  Crown,"  which  is  thJ 
best  peopled  spot  in  the  western  hemisphere  and  yields  her 
sovereign  the  largest  revenue.    As  he  apprehended  the  loss 
of  aU  the  West  Indies,  the  writer  begged  the  King  to  par- 
don the  frankness  of  the  foUowing  observation,  that  "free 
trade  is  y!  life  increase  &  beeing  of  aU  CoUonyes,"  and 
that,  for  lack  of  it,  the  West  Indies  have  not  clothes  suffi- 
cient to  hide  then-  nakedness  or  food  to  fiU  then-  bellies.' 

•  C.  C.  X66X-1668,  no.  561.  ^Ibid.uo.s7S. 
'^  C.  O.  1/18,  104;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  804. 

*  C.  O.  1/20,  92;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1204. 

/He  continued:  "May  itt  please  yofMa'^  to  giue  mee  leaue  to  say  ' 
tins,  whoeuer  hee  bee  that  hath  advised  yof  Ma^to  restraine&tye  „pp   ' 


1^ 


\ 


BARBADOS  AND  THE  LEEWARD  ISLANDS 

Shortly  after  sendmg  this  letter,  Wffloughby  was  drowned 
•whUe    trymg    to    reestablish    the    EngUsh   in    St.    Kitts 
and  was   succeeded  in  the  government  of  Barbados  by 
his  brother  and  heir   to  the  barony,  WUliam,  Lord  WU- 
loughby.i 

The  war  had  clearly  demonstrated  the  mUitary  weakness 
of  Barbados,  but  this  was  a  direct  result  of  the  plantation 
system  of  production  and  could  not,  except  very  mdirectly 
be  attributed  to  EngUsh  poUcy.    During  the  twenty-five 
years  following  the  introduction  of  the  sugar  industry,  the 
wealth  of  Barbados  had  increased  at  a  phenomenal  pace  'and 
was  estimated  to  have  been  in  1666  seventeen  times  what  it 
was  m  1643.2    According  to  a  contemporary  account,  '  the 
buildings  m  1643  were  mean,  with  things  only  for  necessity, 
but  m  1666  plate,  jewels,  and  household  stuff  were  estimated 
at  500,000  1.,  theh-  buUdings  very  fair  and  beautiful,  and 
their  houses  Uke  castles,  their  sugar  houses  and  negroes' 
huts  show  themselves  from  the  sea  Uke  so  many  smaU  towns 
each  defended  by  its  castle.'    But  this  great  increase  hi 
wealth  was  accompanied  by  a  serious  decUne  m  defensive 
strength.    In  1643,  it  was  so  asserted,  the  colony  had  over 
18,000    effective  white  males,  of  whom  more   than  one- 
haU  were  landed  proprietors.    In  1666,  there  were  only 

y^  Colonyes  in  pointe  of  trade,  lett  him  be  neuer  so  greate  A  merchant  or 
Wer  to  the  loiowledge  of  affaires  in  these  parts,  I  must  assure  yo? 

JJanH  t  ?  "°V  '^'"'''°'  *^*°  "  ^'""^   ^"•'J^"'  *  ^-Jd  W  your 
Islands  but  nursed  upp  to  work  for  him  &  such  men." 

^'  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  1341,  1342,  1353. 


ZSG 


lO 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


about  8000  white  men,^  and  of  these  less  than  800  were 
proprietors  of  sugar  estates.  Hand  in  hand  with  this 
diminution  in  the  white  population  and  the  concentra- 
tion of  the  ownership  of  land  went  a  large  increase  in 
the  number  of  negro  slaves.  These  were  estimated  to 
have  been  at  the  former  date  about  5000  and  at  the  latter 
approximately  eight  times  that  number.  During  these 
twenty  odd  years  Barbados  had  lost  from  12,000  to  14,000 
men  in  Willoughby's  mihtary  expeditions  and  by  emigration 
to  the  other  English  colonies — especially  to  Surinam  and 
Jamaica  —  as  well  as  to  those  of  foreign  nations.^ 

The  new  Governor,  WiUiam,  Lord  Willoughby,  was  con- 
siderably worried  by  the  mihtary  weakness  of  the  colony, 
and  suggested  that  it  could  be  remedied  if  white  servants 
were  brought  from  Scotland.  The  Staple  Act  of  1663, 
which  debarred  Scotland  from  exporting  its  products  directly 
to  the  colonies,  had  excepted  servants  and  provisions,  but  it 
was  claimed  that,  imless  all  the  restrictions  on  trade  to  and 
from  Scotland  were  removed,  Scotsmen  could  not  be  in- 
duced to  emigrate  to  Barbados.  Shortly  after  his  assump- 
tion of  the  government,  Willoughby  wrote  to  the  King  that, 
if  the  West  Indies  were  not  to  be  ruined,  two  matters  had 
speedily  to  be  remedied:  one  was  the  lack  of  free  trade 
with  Scotland,  by  means  whereof  these  islands  had  formerly 

*  One-half  of  these  was  said  to  consist  of  "desolate  English, Scotch, and 
Irish." 

2  John  Scott's  Description  of  Barbados,  in  Brit.  Mus.,  Stowe  MSS.  3662, 
ff.  59**  et  seq.  of  the  volume  reversed ;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1657.  These 
two  accounts  contain  a  number  of  loose  statements  and  do  not  fully  agree 
with  one  another.   Some  of  the  obvious  errors  have  been  corrected  in  the  text. 


BARBADOS  AND  THE  LEEWARD  ISLANDS 


II 


been  supphed  with  brave  servants  and  useful  subjects ;  the 
other  was  the  monopoly  of  the  Royal  African  Company.^ 
Later  in  the  same  year  1667,  he  wrote  to  the  Privy  Council 
that  the  war  had  caused  a  great  scarcity  of  white  servants, 
who  were  necessary,  not  only  in  themselves,  but  also  in 
order  to  keep  the  slaves  in  subjection,  and  that  a  trade  for 
servants  from  Scotland  was  essential.^    In  September  of 
1667,3  the  Barbados  Assembly,  in  the  course  of  a  petition 
to  the  King,  stated  that  'free  trade  is  the  best  means  of 
Hving  to  any  colony,  of  which  these  islands  having  for  some 
years  been  debarred,  the  planters  have  been  so  impoverished 
and  the  enemy's  trade  so  advanced,  that  the  EngHsh  to 
maintain  a  Hvelihood  have  been  forced  to  fish  with  the 
French  nets,'  and  requested  free  trade  with  Scotland  and 
a  supply  of  servants  thence,  and  likewise  permission  to 
export  their  produce  to  any  place  in  amity  with  England  in 
ships  qualified  under  the  Navigation  Act  after  payment  of 
the  English  customs. 

At  about  the  time  that  these  complaints  reached  England, 
the  government  also  received  a  detailed  "Account  of  the  Eng- 

'  C.  O.  1/21,  89;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1539. 

^WiUoughby  expressly  stated  that  Irish  servants  were  not  wanted. 
C.  O.  1/21,  162;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1648.  In  another  letter,  written 
about  the  same  time,  WiUoughby  requested  that  three  to  four  thousand 
Scottish  servants  be  transported  to  Barbados.  "  By  such  a  Supply  whether 
Peace  or  Warr,"  he  wrote,  "I  should  be  able  to  grapple  with  Mons^."  Brit. 
Mus.,  Stowe  MSS.  755,  f-  19.  In  1668,  Willoughby  stated  that  Barbados 
had  40,000  negroes,  'whose  different  tongues  and  animosities  have  kept 
them  from  insurrection,  but  (he)  fears  the  Creolian  generation  now  growing 
up  and  increasing  may  hereafter  "mancipate"  their  masters.'  C  C  1661- 
1668,  no.  1788.  Uhid.rvo.is(>S. 


12 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


lish  Sugar  Plantations,"  ^  which  was  tantamount  to  an  elab- 
orate indictment  of  English  poHcy.    Therein  it  was  pointed 
out  that  the  West  Indies  were  of  great  value  and  importance 
to  England ;    that  they  had  formerly  given  employment  to 
a  large  number  of  ships  yearly,  most  of  which  were  freighted 
with  EngHsh  manufactures  and  brought  back  to  England 
sugar,  indigo,  cotton,  and  tobacco,  "w*^^  great  Treasure  cost 
this  Nation  not  one  penny  of  its  Bullion."    Most  of  this 
sugar  was  agam  reexported  from  England  and  was  an  im- 
portant factor  in  rectifying  the  nation's  trade  balance;  and, 
furthermore,  the  duties  on  these  West  Indian  products  greatly 
increased  the  EngUsh  customs  revenue.     This  prosperous 
state,  it  was  said,  had  continued  until  the  passage  of  the 
Navigation  Act  of  1660,  "which  in  time  would  mine  them." 
Since  then  the  West  Indies  have  decayed,  their  trade  employ- 
ing only  one  hundred  and  fifty  ships  yearly.    This  decHne 
was  attributed  directly  to  the  Restoration  colonial  system. 
"In  the  growth  and  former  fflorishmg  Condicon  of  the 
Colonyes  the  planter  in  the  West  Indies  had  freedome  of 
Trade  with  all  Nations  in  amity  with  England  by  meanes 
whereof  they  bought  theire  supplyes  for  theire  plantacon 
on  Cheap  Tearmes  and  Sent  theire  Sugars  etc  to  the  best 
Markets."    As  a  result  of  the  Staple  Act,  it  was  further 
claimed,  the  planters  were  forced  to  pay  double  and  treble 
the  prices  formerly  demanded  for  their  supplies.^    Moreover, 

*  C.  O.  1/22,  20;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1679;  Brit.  Mus.,  Stowe  MSS. 
324,  ff.  4  et  seq.;  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  ff.  629  et  seq. 

2  It  was  asserted  that  this  Act,  which  prohibited  the  importation  of 
European  goods  into  the  colonies  except  from  England,  was  of  advantage 
to  no  one,  and  that  the  customs  coUected  on  such  goods  in  England  did 


BARBADOS  AND  THE  LEEWARD  ISLANDS 


13 


they  were  cut  off  from  trading  with  Scotland,  whence 
formerly  Barbados  had  obtained  numerous  servants. 

Early  in  1668,  these  various  complaints  were  considered 
by  the  English  government.  The  Committee  for  Foreign 
Plantations  reported  that  they  apprehended  that  Barbados 
was  in  ill  condition,  on  account  of  the  multitude  of  negroes 
and  Irish  there  and  the  great  decrease  in  its  other  population, 
but,  pending  further  consideration  of  the  matter,  they  recom- 
mended the  despatch  of  a  dilatory  letter.^  In  the  mean- 
while a  disastrous  conflagration^  had  caused  considerable 
distress  in  Barbados,  in  consequence  whereof  a  special  Com- 
mittee of  the  Privy  Council  was  appointed  to  confer  with 
the  merchants  and  planters  in  London  about  the  best  means 
for  the  colony's  rehef .^  These  merchants  and  planters  pro- 
posed among  other  things  that  the  Committee  should  take 
into  consideration  the  petition  of  the  colony,  especially  in  so 
far  as  it  concerned  a  free  trade  for  negroes  from  Africa  and 
for  servants  from  Scotland.*  Shortly  after  this  conference, 
in  August  of  1668,  the  Barbados  legislature  renewed  its  com- 
plaints and  suggestions  of  the  preceding  year,^  but  on  these 

not  compensate  for  the  decay  of  Barbados.  "Neither  is  the  Custome  the 
tenth  part  of  the  damage  the  planter  sustaines  thereby;  for  that  the  losse 
of  time  the  paying  a  double  fraught,  a  double  Adventure,  together  with 
the  decay  and  damage  the  said  Goods  doe  sustaine  doth  infinitely  surmount 
his  Ma*^^  duty,  and  no  man  is  the  better  for  this  losse." 

*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1712;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  465,  466. 

*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  1734,  1739. 

'  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  472;   C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1768. 

*  C.  C.  1 661-1668,  no.  1769.    These  suggestions  were  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Trade.    P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  475,  476. 

^  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1816. 


■  w  ~- 


14 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


points  no  satisfaction  could  be  obtained.^  In  1670,  Barbados 
again  forwarded  a  similar  petition,^  and  instructions  were 
sent  to  the  Committee  of  Gentlemen  Planters  in  London, 
which  was  composed  of  influential  men  of  whom  some,  like 
Sir  Peter  Colleton  and  Henry  Drax,  were  large  landed 
proprietors  in  Barbados,  to  endeavor  to  secure  redress  for 
their  grievances.^  These  included  requests  for  liberty  to 
ship  their  sugar  directly  to  any  friendly  port  on  giving 
security  for  the  payment  of  the  English  duties  and  for  free 
trade  with  Scotland  so  as  to  secure  servants  thence.*  In 
1671,  the  Assembly  renewed  these  complaints  and  again 
instructed  the  Gentlemen  Planters  to  work  for  their  relief.^ 
This  Barbados  Committee  did  not  find  the  times  favor- 

^  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  519. 

2  c.  O.  31/2,  f.  i;   C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  15. 

'  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  134,  135,  497.  This  committee,  which  took  the 
place  of  the  ordinary  colonial  agent,  was  a  unique  institution  peculiar  to 
Barbados.  It  was  regularly  organized,  having  a  paid  legal  adviser,  Edward 
Thoraburgh,  who  acted  as  its  secretary.  Funds  for  this  and  other  expenses 
—  which  in  167 1  included  about  £100  for  entertaining  members  of  Parha- 
ment  —  were  remitted  by  the  colonial  Assembly.  This  body,  which  was 
also  called  the  "Committee  for  the  Publique  Concern  of  Barbados,"  held 
meetings  at  irregular  intervals,  and  corresponded  actively  with  the  colonial 
legislature  whenever  the  occasion  demanded  it.  C.  O.  31/2,  ff.  103-109; 
C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  370-373. 

*  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  200;  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  465. 

•^C.  O.  31/2,  ff.  26-29;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  199-201.  Among  the 
relief  measures  suggested  in  these  annual  complaints  was  permission  to 
set  up  a  mint  for  coining  money  in  the  colony,  or  that  a  special  coin,  which 
should  pass  current  there  at  somewhat  more  than  its  intrinsic  value,  should 
be  provided.  The  object  of  this  proposal  was  to  do  away  with  the  system 
of  barter  that  prevailed  in  Barbados  and  to  enable  it  to  retain  a  supply  of 
money.  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1816;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  518-520;  C.  C. 
1699,  p.  591 ;  ibid.  1669-1674,  p.  200. 


BARBADOS  AND  THE  LEEWARD  ISLANDS 


IS 


able  for  urging  these  matters,  but  concentrated  its  atten- 
tion on  opposing  the  increase  of  the  English  sugar  du- 
ties, which  was  then  being  debated  in  Parliament.  Early 
in  1673,  however,  after  this  question  had  been  disposed  of, 
there  was  read  by  the  Privy  Coimcil  an  able  memorial  of 
Ferdinando  Gorges,  one  of  the  most  active  of  the  Gentle- 
men Planters.  After  emphasizing  the  great  economic 
value  of  the  sugar  colonies  to  England,  Gorges  stated  that 
they  needed  white  servants  to  keep  the  slaves  in  subjection 
and  to  defend  the  colony  against  foreign  enemies,  and  rec- 
ommended that,  with  this  object  in  view,  free  trade  with 
Scotland  be  allowed.^  This  matter  was  also  presented  to 
the  House  of  Commons,  where,  as  Colonel  Thornburgh, 
the  Committee's  secretary,  wrote  to  the  Assembly,  it  was 
expected  to  be  taken  under  consideration  at  the  fall  session 
of  1673.^    Nothing  could,  however,  be  effected. 

Willoughby  died  in  1673,  and,  pending  the  appomtment 
of  his  successor,  the  government  devolved  upon  the  Pres- 
ident of   the  Council,  Sir  Peter  Colleton.^    Towards  the 

• 

end  of  1673,  Sir  Jonathan  Atkins  was  appointed  Governor 
and,  somewhat  less  than  a  yeax  later,  assumed  the  duties 

1  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  490-  In  addition.  Gorges  stated 
that  the  West  Indies  needed  very  great  quantities  of  provisions  and  manu- 
factures and  urged  that  liberty  be  granted  to  export  them  from  England 
duty  free  "as  formerly,  the  said  Plantations  being  memb'^  of  England." 
In  1669,  one  Nicholas  Blake  made  the  same  suggestion,  saying  'those  of 
New  England  have  had  that  favour  long,  and  we  think  we  have  as  much 
reason  to  enjoy  that  privilege  as  they.'  C.  C.  1699,  p.  590-  New  England 
had  enjoyed  this  privilege  during  the  Interregnum.    Beer,  Origins,  p.  344. 

2  Ibid.  1669-1674,  p.  475. 

»  C.  O.  1/30,  43 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  498,  499- 


i 


Jhtmumk^tt  _£u«ibm^V 


i6 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Of  his  office.^    In  the  mam  from  sincere  conviction,  but  to 
some  extent  also  in  order  to  gain  the  goodwill  of  the  colony  ^ 
Atkms  fuUy  adopted  the  colonial  viewpoint  on  all  questions 
and  actively  sought  to  have  their  complaints  redressed  in 
England.    In  the  spring  of  1675,  the  Assembly  petitioned 
the  Ring,  complaining  among  other  things  of  the  scarcity 
of  white  servants  and  of  the  ill  effects  of  the  enumeration 
o    sugar     Formerly,  they  said,  they  were  plentifully  sup- 
plied with  English  and  Scottish  servants,  but  the  first  no 
longer  came  as  there  was  available  no  land,  "their  maine  al- 
lurement," which  could  be  given  to  them  on  the  expiration 
of  then-  period  of  servitude.    As  for  the  latter,  the  Act  of 
Navigation  stood  in  the  way,  for  men  would  not  bring  ser- 
vants   If  they  could  not  also  carry  commodities  directly 
from  Scotland.    The  enumeration  clauses,  they  clahned,  by 
forcmg  aU  sugar  into  one  market,  had  lowered  prices, 
raised  freight  rates,  and  would  shortly  ruin  the  colonies. 
They  suggested  that  it  be  permitted  to  ship  sugar  to  any 
place  on  payment  of  the  English  duties  of  1660.    This 
they  pointed  out,  would  mean  an  increase  in  the  EngUsh 
customs  revenue,  as  sugars  shipped  via  England  to  foreign 
markets  paid  only  one-half  of  this  subsidy.    They  further 
suggested  that  the  direct  importation  of  goods  from  Europe 
be  allowed  on  payment  of  the  EngUsh  customs  in  Barbados. 
This  permission,  they  said,  could  not  prejudice  any  one  in 
England,     smce  wee  must  stiU  ffetch  our  Provisions,  &  all 
Uiose  other  Goods  of  the  English  manufacture  as  fformerly  " 
FmaUy,  they  stated  that  they  were  willing  to  trade  in  none 

•  C.  C.  i669-i6;4,  pp.  S4,,  g.^.         .  ,^  ^^^^_^^^^  ^^  ^^  ^^  ^^^  ^^ 


1 


BARBADOS  AND  THE  LEEWARD  ISLANDS  17 

but  ships  qualified  under  the  Navigation  Act,  "wee  being 
lykewise  thereby  Incouraged  to  Build  Ships  of  ou^  owne, 
which  must  necessarily  Increase  Navigation."  ^ 

Funds  were  sent  to  the  Gentlemen  Planters  in  London  to 
defray  the  expenses  'of  prosecuting  these  Addresses  to  his 
Majesty.'    At  the  same  time,  Atkins  wrote  to  the  Secretary 
of  State,  Sir  Joseph  Wmiamson,^  that  he  could  not  refuse 
his    assistance    m    securing    relief   for    these    grievances, 
'seeing  the  evil  consequences  portended,'  and  that  in  his 
opinion  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation  were  greatly  in- 
juring the  West  Indies.    A  few  months  later,  in  the  faU  of 
1675,  the  Assembly  renewed  its  complaints,  pointing  out 
that  a  recent  plot  of  the  slaves  to  rebel  against  their  masters 
had  stm  further  emphasized  the  necessity  of  free  trade  with 
Scotland,  and  besides  requesting  that  the  export  duties  on 
enumerated  goods  imposed  by  ParKament  in  1673  might  be 
repealed,  since  they  hampered  the  colony's  trade  with  New 
England  for  provisions.^   In  this  connection,  however,  Atkins 
wrote  that  the  scarcity  of  provisions  was  due  to  the  embargo 
laid  thereon  in  New  England,  which  was  then  in  the  throes 
of  a  severe  Indian  war,  and  that  it  was  this  war  which  was 
the  primary  cause  of  the  bad  state  of  the  colonies,  but  that 
these  conditions  were  'made  much  worse  by  the  severity  of 
the  Act  of  Trade.'^     In  April  of  1676,  Atkins  again  ad- 
dressed Secretary  WiUiamson  on  this  subject.    "  Butt  I  con- 

^  C.  O.  31/2,  ff.  165, 172, 177-183;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  193, 206, 208, 

303,  304 ;  P.  C.  CaJ.  I,  pp.  6s5y  636,  676. 

'  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  210.  3  /j^.  pp^  288,  289. 

Ibid.  pp.  301,  302. 

(.) 


II! 


i8 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


fesse,"  his  despatch  reads,  "I  lye  under  some  affliction 
when  I  consider  the  threatened  Dissolution  of  these  Planta- 
tions impending  them,  being  so  considerable  a  Perquisite  to 
the  Crowne  of  England,  for  if  the  Indians  did  not  hasten 
their  Fate,  the  Act  for  Trade  and  Commerce  in  a  short  tyme 
wiU  eflFect  it,  for  by  bringing  all  their  Commodities  to  one 
Market  it  hath  brought  downe  the  price  of  them  to  so  low 
an  Ebb"  that  it  is  less  than  the  cost  of  production.  He 
further  added  that  it  was  inconsistent  with  all  reason  and 
against  all  practice  not  to  allow  free  trade  to  an  island.^ 

In  October  of  1676,  the  Lords  of  Trade  took  under  con- 
sideration Atkins's  statements,  and  resolved  'to  give  him  a 
cheque  for  upholding   this  maxim  of   free  trade'  and   to 
censure  him  severely  for  'these  dangerous  prmciples  which  he 
entertains  contrary  to  the  settled  laws  of  the  Kingdom  and 
the  apparent  advantage  of  it.'  2    At  the  same  time,  they 
ordered  the  Conmiissioners  of  the  Customs  and  other  in- 
terested parties  to  attend  a  hearing  on  the  grievances  and 
remedial  suggestions  forwarded  by  the  Barbados  Assem- 
bly.     On  this  occasion,^  Sir  George  Downing,  represent- 
ing the  Customs,  argued  that  the  estabHshed  method  of 
trade  was  necessary  for  the  increase  of  shipping  and  "Wel- 
fare of  Old  England,"  and  stated  that  Barbados  had  least 
reason  to  complain  of  these  restraints,  since  the  English 
customs  on  sugar  were  inconsiderable  in  comparison  with 

»  C.  O.  1/36,  39 ;   C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  368.    Later  in  the  year,  Atkins 
repeated  these  views  in  a  despatch  to  the  Lords  of  Trade.    IbU.  p.  424. 
2  im.  pp.  474,  475. 

»  C.  O.  391/1,  ff.  240,  241 ;   C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  482. 


BARBADOS  AND  THE  LEEWARD  ISLANDS 


19 


those  on  tobacco.  Colonel  Thomburgh  and  Sir  Peter 
Colleton  were  then  called  in,  and  the  Lords  of  Trade  rep- 
resented to  them  the  necessity  of  the  Acts  of  Trade  and 
Navigation.  Colleton  then  stated  that  the  condition  of 
the  colonies  had  changed  very  much  since  these  laws  were 
first  enacted,  and  that,  "the  occasion  being  now  ceased.  It 
is  his  Maj'^'  Interest  to  Suspend  Some  part  of  those  Lawes 
w*^.^  are  hurtfull  to  the  English  Trade."  He  claimed  that 
the  sugar  trade  was  so  much  burdened  by  being  confined 
to  one  market  that,  in  time,  the  English  would  be  ousted  by 
the  French.  Furthermore,  he  asserted  that  other  nations 
gave  greater  encouragement  to  their  sugar  colonies,  and 
complained  that  the  sugar  schedule  in  the  tariff  of  1660  al- 
lowed the  importation  into  England  of  some  refined  Brazil- 
ian sugar.^ 

Downing,  in  answer,  asserted  that  the  repeal  of  the  enu- 
meration of  sugar  "would  quite  destroy  the  Trade  of  Eng- 
land, and  consequently  ruyne  Barbados."  Colleton  replied 
that  this  restraint  had  lessened  the  employment  of  EngUsh 
shipping  and  asserted  that  before  these  Acts  all  European 
commodities,  except  oil  from  Spain  and  salt  from  France, 
had  been  imported  from  England.  Downing  denied  this, 
stating  that  at  that  time  over  three-quarters  of  the  ships 
trading  to  Barbados  were  Dutch.  Downing  further  dem- 
onstrated "the  necessity  of  bringing  the  groweth  of  Our 
Plantations  immediately  into  England  by  the  Scale  of  Co- 
modities,  w*'.^  are  imported  in  far  greater  quantities  then  are 

^  He  stated  that  the  expenses  involved  in  landing  in  England  such  sugars 
as  were  exported  thence  to  foreign  markets  amounted  to  175.  a  ton. 


\ 


■^^P" 


20 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


exported,  So  that  vnlesse  Wee  had  the  groweth  of  Our 
Plantations  and  Fish  to  Export,  Our  Ships  would  go  out,  and 
forreigners  return  Empty,  w*'^  would  occasion  a  great  decay 
of  our  Navigation." 

The  Lords  of  Trade  accordingly  unanimously  agreed  that 
the  demands  of  Barbados  should  not  be  granted,  and  rep- 
resented to  the  King  "of  what  evill  Consequence  it  is,  that 
any  of  your  Subjects  should  presimie  to  petition  your  Majesty 
against  Acts  of  Parliament  (which  are  the  Laws  they  must 
live  imder)  and  call  them  Greivances,  And  Acts  upon  which 
the  whole  ff rame  of  the  Trade  and  Navigation  of  this  King- 
dome  doth  turne,  and  indeed  would  be  destroyed  by  such  a 
Dispensation." ^  They  then  added  that,  in  their  opinion,  the 
colony  would  not  have  presumed  to  make  such  an  address, 
had  it  not  been  for  the  connivance  of  Governor  Atkins,  who, 
instead  of  restraining,  had  encouraged  these  views.^  Ac- 
cordingly, they  recommended  that  he  be  severely  repri- 
manded and  also  instructed  in  the  future  to  suppress  any 
such  notions,  "which  tend  not  only  to  the  mine  of  the  Trade 
of  this  Kingdome,  but  in  the  end  would  be  the  mine  of  the 
Trade  of  that  Island  also."  Such  a  severe  letter  of  censure 
was  sent  in  the  King's  name  to  Atkins,^  who  in  reply  stated 

^  C.  O.  1/38,  31 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  676-679 ;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  484, 

485. 

« "Wee  finde  him  if  not  the  Prompter,  yet  the  Consenter  with  the  In- 
habitants of  the  Island  for  suspending  the  Acts  of  Navigation  and  Trade, 
and  that  he  doth  labour  with  more  Arguments  for  it  then  the  Inhabitants 
themselves  in  their  said  Paper  of  Greivances." 

3  C.  O.  324/2,  ff.  103-106;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  676;   C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp. 

510,  511- 


BARBADOS  AND  THE  LEEWARD  ISLANDS  21 

that  he  had  agreed  to  the  Assembly's  address,  lest  "by 
shocking  with  them  at  my  first  coming,  might  render  me 
incapable  of  doing  the  service  I  had  done  and  hope  to  do."^ 
This   decision  was   so   uncompromisingly  explicit   that 
thereafter  Barbados  abandoned  its  attempts  to  secure  an  ex- 
tensive alteration  of  the  trade  laws.    It  was  at  last  realized 
that  it  would  be  futile  to  work  for  a  fundamental  change  in 
the  policy  of  the  English  government.    Hence,  in  the  future, 
such  ejfforts  were  abandoned,  and  the  colony's  attention  was 
limited  to  securing  only  minor  modifications  of  these  Acts.* 
In  the  main,  however,  during  the  decade  preceding  the  Eng- 
Ush  Revolution  of  1688/9,  Barbados  centred  its  efforts  on 
securing  a  modification  of  the  four  and  a  half  per  cent  export 
tax  and  the  repeal  of  the  additional  duty  on  sugar  imposed 
by  Parliament  in  1685.    This  cessation  of  agitation  against 
the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation  does  not,  however,  imply 
any  change  in  attitude  towards  them,  since  it  was  chiefly 
due  to  a  recognition  of  the  futility  of  attempts  to  secure  so 
radical  a  departure  in  English  policy. 

1  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  63. 

2  In  1679,  the  Barbados  legislature  wrote  to  the  Gentlemen  Planters 
that,  as  free' trade  with  Scotland  was  unobtainable,  they  should  endeavor 
to  secure  permission  for  six  ships  to  engage  yearly  in  this  trade  with  the 
object  of  bringing  white  servants,  'the  want  of  which  is  become  an  ap- 
parent hazard  of  the  place,'  on  account  of  the  danger  of  a  foreign  attack 
and  the  still  graver  peril  of  a  slave  insurrection.  In  addition,  they  were 
instructed  to  secure  for  Barbados  the  same  trade  privileges  as  Tangier  en- 
joyed, and  also  a  more  favorable  construction  of  the  law  as  regards  the 
importation  of  tallow  from  Ireland.  Hitherto  tallow  had  been  considered 
as  provisions,  which  legally  could  be  imported  into  the  colonies  directly 
from  Ireland,  but  a  recent  decision  had  held  that  it  was  "noe  provision." 
C.  O.  31/2,  ff.  339-341 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  352. 


l! 


22 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Barbados's  complaints  against  the  laws  of  trade  and 
navigation  were  in  the  main  directed  against  two  points: 
the  enumeration  of  sugar  and  the  prohibition  of  free  trade  to 
and  from  Scotland.  The  colony  approved  of  the  Navigation 
Act,  in  so  far  as  it  excluded  foreign  ships,  since  protection 
was  desired  for  its  own  fleet  of  small  trading  sloops.^  In 
addition,  there  was  some  opposition  to  the  Staple  Act  of 
1673,  which  it  was  claimed  added  to  the  cost  of  their  Euro- 
pean supplies.  The  overshadowing  grievance,  however, 
was  the  enumeration  of  sugar.  According  to  the  law,  sugar 
could  not  be  shipped  directly  from  the  colonies  to  foreign 
markets,  but  had  first  to  be  unloaded  and  landed  in  England, 
whence,  after  the  pa)mient  of  sKght  duties,  it  could  be  sent 
to  its  ultimate  destination.  A  considerable  portion  of  the 
English  sugar  crop  was  sold  in  the  markets  of  continental 
Europe,  where  it  had  to  compete  with  the  produce  of  the 
colonies  of  foreign  nations.  The  roimdabout  course  en- 
joined in  reaching  this  international  market,  together  with 
the  additional  expenses  necessitated  thereby,  unquestion- 
ably hampered  the  English  sugar  colonies  and  diminished 
the  profits  of  the  planters. 

It  was  claimed  in  1668  that  the  restrictive  English 
policy  had  led  directly  to  the  rapid  development  of  the 
sugar  industry  in  the  French  West  Indies.^  Up  to  that 
time,  the  colonial   policy  of  France  was  somewhat  more 

*  In  1676  and  1684,  it  was  stated  that  Barbados  owned  about  60  sloops. 
C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  348,  349,  423 ;  Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  2441,  f.  14. 

2  Memorial  of  1668  on  the  Sugar  Trade,  in  Shaftesbury  Papers,  Section 
X;   Bodleian,  Rawlinson  MSS.,  A  478,  f.  8S. 


\ 


BARBADOS  AND  THE  LEEWARD  ISLANDS 


23 


liberal  than  that  of  England,  but  shortly  thereafter  it 
was  modified  and  became  much  more  restrictive.  In 
their  broad  features,  the  regulations  of  both  countries  ran 
parallel.  France,  like  her  neighbor,  prohibited  foreigners 
from  trading  to  her  colonies,  and  obliged  them  to  ship  their 
sugars  to  the  metropoHs.  But  the  French  duties  and  fiscal 
arrangements  were  such  that  the  colonial  producer  was 
largely  at  the  mercy  of  the  refiner  in  France.^  In  this 
connection  may  be  quoted  a  significant  remark  of  Sir  Will- 
iam Stapleton,  the  able  Governor  of  the  Leeward  Islands.  In 
1 68 1,  he  conceived  the  project  of  exchanging  the  English 
island  of  Montserrat  for  the  French  portions  of  St.  Kitts,  as 
the  close  proximity  of  the  two  rival  nations  there  had  led 

1  Up  to  1670,  the  French  duties  on  raw  sugar,  amounting  to  four  livres 
a  cwt,  were  repaid  on  reshipments  to  foreign  markets.  In  that  year,  this 
privilege  was  withdrawn,  but  the  duties  were  reduced  to  two  liwes.  They 
remained  at  this  figure  until  1675,  when  the  higher  rate  was  restored.  This 
duty  virtually  prevented  reshipments  of  raw  sugar  from  France,  and  finally 
in  1684  such  exports  were  formally  forbidden.  Thus  the  French  sugar 
colonies  were  confined  to  one  market.  On  the  other  hand,  the  raw  sugars 
of  the  English  colonies  had  to  pay  in  England  duties  amounting  to  only 
IS.  6d.  a  cwt.,  of  which  one-half  was  repaid  on  reshipments  to  foreign  markets. 
The  French  tariff,  however,  encouraged  refining  in  the  colonies.  Up  to 
1682  there  was  a  uniform  duty  in  France  on  all  sugars  from  the  French 
colonies  and,  as  a  result,  it  was  found  profitable  to  establish  refineries  in 
the  West  Indies.  In  that  year,  however,  the  duty  on  refined  sugars  was 
raised  from  four  to  eight  livres.  This  ratio  between  the  refined  and  raw 
product  of  2  to  I  was  considerably  more  favorable  to  the  colonial  refiner  than 
that  adopted  in  the  EngUsh  tariff  of  1660,  which  was  3!  to  i.  The  French 
refiners  were  not  satisfied  with  this  additional  duty  imposed  on  their  colonial 
competitors*  product,  and  accordingly,  in  1684,  an  arret  prohibited  the 
establishment  of  new  refineries  in  the  French  colonies.  S.  L.  Mims,  Col- 
bert's West  India  PoKcy,  pp.  260-281. 


24 


THE   OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


to  incessant  bickering.  In  this  connection,  he  wrote  to  the 
Lords  of  Trade  that,  in  his  opinion,  the  French  in  St.  Kitts 
would  be  induced  by  self-interest  to  prefer  to  4ive  under 
the  Enghsh  Government  which  is  so  sweet  and  easy.'  ^ 

Irrespective  of  the  comparative  liberaUty  or  stringency 
of  the  English  and  French  regulations,  it  would  manifestly 
be  most  unjust  to  judge  English  policy  in  its  entirety  by 
merely  one  of  the  provisions  of  a  cohesive  and  complex  sys- 
tem. The  sugar  islands,  located  in  the  centre  of  Europe's 
cockpit,  required  continual  protection,  in  return  for  which 
England  felt  fully  justified  in  imposing  such  commercial  re- 
strictions as  might  seem  advisable.  Moreover,  the  direct 
complement  to  the  enumeration  restriction  was  the  virtual 
monopoly  of  the  home  market  accorded  to  English  colonial 
sugar.  But  as  at  this  time  a  large  portion  of  such  sugar, 
approximately  one-half,^  was  sold  in  foreign  markets,  the 
price  there  largely  controlled  the  price  in  England;  and 
hence  this  monopoly  by  no  means  offset  the  disadvantages 
of  enumeration.  But  the  time  was  to  come  when  England, 
consuming  practically  its  entire  colonial  crop,  had  in  con- 
sequence of  these  preferential  duties  to  pay  the  West  Indies 
monopoly  prices,  far  in  excess  of  those  ruHng  in  the  neutral 
international  markets. 

The  second  of  the  colony's  two  main  grievances  was  based 
on  far  less  solid  grounds.     There  was  but  little  likelihood 

^  He  pointed  out  that  the  French  paid  120  pounds  of  sugar  as  capital 
rent  yearly  for  themselves,  servants,  and  slaves,  and  4  livres  in  France  for 
every  100  pounds  weight  of  their  produce  imported,  'and  we  only  pay  the 
4^  per  cent  here  and  eighteenpence  at  home.'    C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  95. 

^  Dalby  Thomas,  in  Harleian  Miscellany  II,  p.  346. 


BARBADOS  AND  THE  LEEWARD  ISLANDS 


25 


that  free  trade  with  Scotland  would  materially  have  added 
to  the  island's  white  population.  The  total  area  of  Barbados 
is  somewhat  over  one  hundred  thousand  acres,  about  equal  to 
that  of  the  Isle  of  Wight.  All  of  this  small  territory  was  at 
that  time  in  a  comparatively  advanced  state  of  cultivation, 
and  land  commanded  high  prices.  The  lack  of  free  land  and 
the  great  extension  of  the  system  of  slave  labor  not  only 
cut  down  the  white  immigration,  but  had  even  stimulated  a 
movement  in  the  opposite  direction.^  As  Governor  Atkins 
wrote  in  1680  to  the  Lords  of  Trade,  numbers  were  leaving 
Barbados  for  Carolina,  Jamaica,  and  the  Leeward  Islands  in 
the  hope  of  securing  land,  while  few  white  servants  had  come 
to  the  island,  'since  people  have  found  out  the  convenience 
and  cheapness  of  slave-labor.'  ^ 

As  a  rule  in  communities,  where  the  opposition  to  a  law 
is  virtually  unanimous,  its  effects  are  greatly  mitigated  by 
wholesale  violations  of  its  provisions.  In  Barbados,  how- 
ever, there  does  not  seem  to  have  prevailed  extensive  illegal 
trading.  The  evidence  on  this  point  is  indirect  and  neces- 
sarily inconclusive.  Violators  of  the  law  naturally  do  not 
publish  details  of  their  actions,  and  the  extent  of  the  evasion 
must  largely  be  judged  by  suits  brought  for  its  enforcement 
and  by  other  circumstantial  evidence.  The  bulk  of  the 
sugar  was  exported  from  the  island  in  English  trading  ships 
that  had  given  bond  in  England  to  bring  the  enumerated 

*  In  the  year  ending  June  24,  1683,  446  freemen  left  Barbados,  of  whom 
285  went  to  the  other  colonies.  During  the  same  period  325  freemen  and 
385  white  servants  arrived  in  the  colony.  Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  2441, 
f.  20. 

•  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  485. 


'1 


26 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


products  back  to  the  metropolis.    There  is  every  reason  to 
believe  that  the  terms  of  these  bonds  were  rigidly  enforced 
by  the  English  customs  authorities.    A  portion  of  the  crop, 
however,  was  shipped  in  vessels  either  belonging  to  Barba- 
dos or  that  had  come  to  the  island  from  places  other  than 
England,  mainly  from  the  continental  colonies.    These  ves- 
sels were  required  to  give  bond  in  Barbados  not  to  carry  the 
enumerated  commodities  elsewhere  than  to  England  and  the 
other  colonies.     These  bonds  were  exacted,  but  apparently 
during  the  years  from  1666  to  1681  no  attempt  was  made 
to  see  that  their  terms  were  complied  with.     In  1681,  Sir 
Richard   Button,  the  mercenary  Governor   of   Barbados, 
stated  that  since  1666  no  certificates  had  been  received  in  the 
colony  that  the  goods,  for  which  bonds  had  been  given  there, 
had  been  duly  landed  in  England  or  in  the  colonies ;  and  he 
petitioned  for  the  proceeds  of  the  suits  brought  on  account 
of  these  outstanding  bonds.^    In  reply,  the  Lords  of  Trade 
instructed  Button  to  ascertain  in  what  instances  the  terms 
of  these  imcertified  bonds  had  been  complied  with  and  to 
cause  the  others  to  be  put  in  process,  and  in  future  to  prose- 
cute all  bonds  for  which  certificates  had  not  been  returned 
within  a  reasonable  time.^    Obviously,  such  lax  control  as 
these  facts  demonstrate  gave  ample  opportunity  for  the 
direct  shipment  of  some  enumerated  commodities  to  con- 
tinental Europe.     There  are  other  indications  also  that  the 
laws  were  not  fully  enforced. 
In  1669,  the  EngHsh  government  instructed  the  Governor 

1  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  112,  113. 

2  C.  O.  1/52,  60;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  549. 


BARBADOS  AND  THE  LEEWARD  ISLANDS 


27 


of  Barbados  to  seize  two  ships  that  had  sailed  from  Holland 
for  that  island.^  In  answer  thereto,  Christopher  Codrington, 
who  was  acting  as  governor  during  Willoughby's  absence, 
wrote  that  he  had  already  seized  one  of  these  vessels,  and 
that  the  other  had  not  as  yet  arrived.  He  added  that  he 
was  'very  glad  to  find  himself  so  well  backed  by  his  Majesty's 
commands,  since  his  former  actions  of  this  nature  have  with 
some  gained  him  the  imputation  of  severity.'  "I  doubt 
not,"  he  further  wrote,  "but  there  are  generally  many  such 
thinges  underhand  done,"  but  in  his  opinion  the  EngUsh 
customs  authorities  were  in  part  to  blame,  since  they  per- 
mitted ships  from  HoUand  to  touch  in  England  and  there 
gave  them  the  certificates  upon  which  permission  to  trade 
had  always  been  granted  in  the  colonies.^  While  apparently 
there  was  some  violation  of  the  enumeration  clauses  and 
also  some  illegal  importation  of  European  goods,  there  is, 
however,  no  reason  to  doubt  the  essential  accuracy  of 
Governor  Atkins's  statement  that  no  foreign  ships  were  ever 
permitted  to  come  to  Barbados.^  All  the  officials  were  prob- 
ably not  so  conscientious  as  Beputy-Govemor  Edwyn  Stede, 
who  wrote  in  1687  of  his  care  "to  prevent  all  frauds  or 
dealeing  contrary  to  the  Acts  of  Trade  and  Navigation  haue- 
ing  some  time  since  confiscated  a  Small  Vessel  or  two  for 
breach  thereof,"*  yet  the  essential  principles  of  the  laws 
were  apparently  fairly  adequately  enforced.^ 

*  C.  O.  1/24,  4 ;   C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  2. 
^  C.  O.  1/24,  42;   C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  15. 
'  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  424.  <  C.  O.  1/60,  12. 

^  In  1673,  discussing  the  question  of  a  fit  successor  to  Willoughby  in  the 
government  of  Barbados,  Sir  Peter  Colleton  wrote  that  in  his  opinion  'a 


'1*1 


i  '1' 


28 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


During  the  course  of  the  incessant  campaign  against  this 
or  that  feature  of  English  policy  it  was  claimed,  with  weari- 
some reiteration  and  in  exaggerated  terms,  that  Barbados 
was  on  the  verge  of  economic  ruin.  In  general,  these  parti- 
san statements  have  been  uncritically  accepted,  and  the  de- 
velopment of  the  island  has  usually  been  represented  as  one 
of  unexampled  prosperity  culminating  rapidly  and  then 
changing  equally  swiftly  to  decay  and  decline.  In  reality, 
Barbados's  record  had  been  one  of  fairly  constant  progress, 
with  intervening  periods  of  stagnation  and  even  of  reces- 
sion, and  the  island  to-day  has  a  far  more  extensive  foreign 
trade  and  supports  a  much  larger  population  than  in  the 
heyday  of  its  glory.  In  historical  evolution,  growth  and 
decadence  are  terms  used  more  frequently  in  a  relative, 
than  in  an  absolute,  sense.  The  prosperity  of  the  island 
towards  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century  was  espe- 
cially conspicuous  because  contemporary  writers  contrasted 
it  with  the  meagre  results  attained  in  the  other  colonies. 
The  small  area  of  Barbados,  however,  absolutely  prevented 
a  growth  commensurate  with  that  of  some  of  the  other 
dominions ;  and,  as  those  increased  in  wealth  and  numbers, 
the  importance  of  this  colony  became  relatively  less.  When 
viewed  from  this  comparative  standpoint,  which  inevitably 

man  that  has  an  interest  on  the  place  will  be  more  certain  to  be  such  than 
one  sent  from  England,  who  may  think  his  employment  a  reward  for  past 
services,  and  that  he  shall  be  winked  at  if  for  his  particular  profit  he  break 
the  Acts  of  Trade  and  Navigation  and  other  orders ;  which  the  other  will 
never  dare  to  do,  especially  if  he  have  also  an  estate  in  England,  and  other 
than  such  he  would  never  advise  to  be  trusted.'  C.  O.  1/30,  43;  C.  C. 
1669-1674,  pp.  498,  499. 


I 


BARBADOS  AND  THE  LEEWARD  ISLANDS  29 

gave  a  false  perspective,  the  island  seemed  even  to  be  de- 
clining.     Only  relatively  was  this  true ;  absolutely  the  pro- 
cess in  general,  after  the  initial  giant  strides  foUowing  the 
introduction  of  the  sugar  industry,  was  one  of  intermittent 
and  slow  progress.     But  throughout  the  entire  Restoration 
period,  and  for  a  considerable   time  thereafter,  Barbados 
continued  actually  to  be  from  the  imperial  standpoint  by 
far  the  richest  and  most  important  of  the  English  colonies. 
The  introduction  of  the  comprehensive  commercial  sys- 
tem was  accompanied  in  time,  and  only  to  a  minor  extent 
in  the  relationship  of  inseparable  cause  and  effect,  by  a  se- 
vere faU  in  the  price  of  sugar;  and  the  difficulties  of  the 
planters  were  further  increased  by  the  diminishing  fertility 
of  the  soil.i    The  abnormally  large  profits  of  the  bonanza 
period  disappeared,  and  with  them  the  inordinate  luxury 
always  accompanying  such  an  era,^  but  the  sugar  industry 
was  placed  on  a  more  permanent  and  soHd  basis.     At  the 
time  of  the  conclusion  of  the  Dutch  and  French  war  in  1667, 
the  worst  days  of  the  economic  readjustment  were  over,  and 
despite  the  curtailed  profits  derived  from  sugar,  Barbados, 
though  expanding  very  slowly,  continued  to  remain  the  most 
considerable  of  the  EngHsh  colonies.    The  white  population, 

*  In  1668,  Lord  WiUoughby  stated  that  the  land  was  almost  worn  out 
and  did  not  yield  two-thirds  as  much  per  acre  as  formerly.  C.  C.  1661- 
1668,  no.  1788. 

*In  1671,  Sir  Thomas  Lynch  wrote  to  Lord  Arlington:  'The  island 
(Barbados)  appears  very  flourishing,  and  the  people  numerous  and  Kve 
splendidly :  what  they  owe  in  London  does  not  appear  here,  but  has  caused 
the  Deputy  Governor  and  Assembly  to  make  an  Act  prohibiting  the  im- 
portation of  aU  wines  for  three  years,  to  entrench  the  expense  of  the  planter 
and  pnde  of  the  Portuguese.'    Ibid.  1669-1674,  p.  223. 


.  1 


30 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


which  in  1668  was  estimated  roughly  at  20,ocx5,  continued 
about  stationary,  but  the  number  of  slaves  increased  from 
40,000  in  1668  to  about  50,000  twenty  years  later. ^ 

This  white  population  and  the  slaves  belonging  to  it  were 
chiefly  occupied  in  producing  sugar  and  its  by-products, 
molasses  and  rum.  But  in  addition  to  sugar,  Barbados 
yielded  other  exotic  commodities.  Tobacco,  the  first  staple 
of  the  island,  was  no  longer  raised  for  export,  but  a  little 
indigo  and  relatively  considerable  quantities  of  cotton  and 
ginger  were  shipped  to  England.^  There  the  cotton  was 
used  to  make  candle-wicks  and  textiles;  and  it  was  claimed  in 
1690  that,  as  a  result  of  its  production  in  the  English  West 
Indies,  the  price  in  England  had  fallen  from  one  shilling  to 
five  and  a  half  pence  a  pound.^  The  ginger  to  some  extent 
took  the  place  of  pepper  in  England,  and  had  fallen  even 
more  considerably  in  price  as  a  result  of  the  large  supplies 
coming  from   the  English  colonies.'*    No  reliable  figures 

*  There  are  avaOable  numerous  documents  on  the  population  of  Bar- 
bados, but  they  disagree  with  one  another,  and  are  especially  inaccurate 
in  so  far  as  the  number  of  slaves  is  concerned.  The  estimates  of  the  negro 
population  were  based  on  the  tax  returns,  which  grossly  understated  the 
actual  numbers.  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1788;  ibid.  1699,  p.  590;  ibid. 
1669-1674,  pp.  495,  496;  ibid.  1675-1676,  pp.  348,  349;  ibid.  1677-1680, 
p.  509;  ibid.  1681-1685,  pp.  no,  150;  Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  2441,  f.  12^ 

2  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  107 ;  ibid.  1699,  p.  591 ;  ibid.  1675-1676,  p.  422 ; 
ibid.  1677-1680,  p.  no;  ibid.  1681-1685,  p.  71;  Davies,  The  History  of 
Barbados,  S'  Christophers,  etc.  (London,  1666),  p.  198. 

'  Dalby  Thomas,  in  Harleian  Miscellany  II,  pp.  347,  352;  Social 
England  (ed.  1895)  IV,  p.  449. 

^  Dalby  Thomas,  in  Harleian  Miscellany  II,  pp.  347,  353.  According 
to  this  writer,  the  English  West  Indies  produced  yearly  1000  tons  of  cotton 
and  4000  tons  of  ginger. 


BARBADOS  AND  THE  LEEWARD  ISLANDS 


31 


as  to  the  quantity  and  value  of  the  colony's  exports  during 
this  period  are  available,^  but  it  was  generally  stated  that 
from  150  to  200  ships  were  yearly  required  to  load  its  prod- 
uce.^ 

The  attention  of  the  colony  was  so  largely  concentrated 
on  raising  these  exotic  products  for  export,  that  the  pro- 
duction of  food-stuffs  was  neglected.  Instead  of  devoting 
its  valuable  and  limited  acreage  to  Indian  com,  as  might 
have  been  done,^  it  was  found  more  profitable  to  import 
provisions  from  Europe  and  the  continental  colonies.  From 
England  the  colony  obtained  its  clothing,  tools,  utensils,  and 
other  manufactures,  as  well  as  some  provisions  and  liquors ; 
from  Ireland  were  imported  meats,  fish,  cheese,  and  butter ; 
the  continental  colonies  supplied  peas,  pork,  fish,  flour,  and 
other  food-stuffs,  as  well  as  horses  and  lumber,  taking  in 
return  sugar,  molasses,  nmi,  cotton,  and  ginger.* 

The  economic  history  of  the  Leeward  Islands  differs  in 
this  respect  from  that  of  the  Barbados,  that  whereas  that 
colony  was  from  the  standpoint  of  the  day  already  in  1660 
fully  settled,  Nevis,  Montserrat,  Antigua,  and  the  English 
portion  of  St.  Kitts  were  then  largely  undeveloped,  and  the 

^  In  1676,  Governor  Atkins  stated  that  it  was  impossible  to  give  the 
value  of  the  imports  and  exports.     C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  422. 

^  These  ships  ranged  from  20  to  300  tons,  the  vessels  trading  from  New 
England  and  the  other  colonies  being  as  a  rule  considerably  smaller  than 
those  from  England. 

'  In  1676,  it  was  stated  that  Barbados  yielded  two  crops  of  Indian  com 
yearly.     C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  348,  349. 

*  C.  O.  s3j  13  and  14  passim;  C.  O.  390/6,  f.  51 ;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p. 
423;  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1672-1675,  p.  100;  Richard  Blome,  A  Description 
of  the  Island  of  Jamaica  (London,  1672),  pp.  65-70. 


.ill 


iL' 


32 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


lesser  islands  of  this  group  were  virtually  in  their  primitive 
state.  As  Lord  Willoughby  wrote  in  1664,  these  settlements 
were  as  yet  but  "very  poore  things."  ^  Their  population 
was  small,  and,  in  addition,  the  sugar  industry  did  not  as 
yet  completely  dominate  their  life.  In  St.  Kitts,  ginger 
was  a  staple  crop;^  and,  in  Antigua  and  elsewhere  as  well, 
tobacco  still  continued  to  be  planted  on  a  comparatively 
extensive  scale. ^ 

The  Leeward  Islands  had  been  included  in  the  grant  made 
by  Charles  I  to  the  Earl  of  Carlisle,  and  by  the  Restoration 
settlement  these  islands  and  Barbados  were  united  in  one 
government.     As  Governor  of  the  Caribbee  Islands,  Wil- 
loughby was  their  chief  magistrate.     In  1664,  the  Council 
and  Assembly  of  Nevis  complained  to  him  that  'they  had 
been  debarred  from  free  trade  by  the  self-driving  interest 
of  some  not  well  affected  to  our  well-being.'  *     The  other 
islands  sent  similar  petitions  to  Willoughby,^  who  strongly 
supported  then*  complaints.    He  wrote  to  Lord  Arlington 
that  these  settlements  "indeed  are  too  hard  pinched  by  the 
acts  of  trade  and  navigation, ''  and  that  the  French,  allowing 
a  free  trade,  have  all  their  ports  full  of  vessels,  while  none 
come  to  the  EngHsh,  which  formerly  was  quite  otherwise; 
"for  when  there  was  a  free  and  open  trade  the  EngHsh  had 
all  the  shipping  and  the  French  little  or  none."  ^    Later 

1  C  O.  1/18,  97. 

^Davies,  The  History  of   Barbados,    S*  Christophers,    etc.    (London, 
1666),  p.  198. 

«  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  731.  4  im. 

*  C.  O.  1/18,  104  i-iii. 

«  C.  O.  1/18,  97 ;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  792. 


BARBADOS  AND  THE  LEEWARD  ISLANDS 


ZZ 


in  the  same  year,  1664,  Willoughby  wrote  to  the  King  of  the 
"Heavie  &  Insupportable  Pressures"  these  islands  suffered 
from  the  Acts  of  1660  and  1663,  "whereby  they  are  brought 
into  that  great  want  &  Necessity,  as  if  not  Relieued  by  yo' 
Majestic,  they  must  bee  Inforced  eyther  to  Seeke  out  for 
Some  other  Place  (as  many  haue  of  late  Yeeres  don)  Or 
els  Perish  where  they  are ;  there  being  few,  or  noe  English 
Shipping  that  come  at  them."  ^ 

After  making  all  allowances  for  the  personal  bias  in  these 
statements,  it  still  cannot  be  questioned  that  the  laws  of 
trade  were  retarding  the  economic  development  of  these 
islands.  In  addition,  shortly  after  the  despatch  of  these 
complaints,  the  Dutch  and  French  war  all  but  compassed 
their  ruin.  The  French  took  the  English  part  of  St.  Kitts, 
as  well  as  Montserrat  and  Antigua,^  and  Nevis  barely  ex- 
caped  the  same  fate.  The  English  succeeded  in  retaking 
Antigua  and  Montserrat,  and  their  part  of  St.  Kitts  was 
restored  by  the  Treaty  of  Breda  in  1667,  but  great  damage 
had  been  inflicted  in  the  coiu*se  of  these  vicissitudes.  Plan- 
tations were  in  ruins,  the  indispensable  slaves  had  been 
taken  away  by  the  French,  and  many  of  the  English  settlers 
had  permanently  abandoned  the  islands  for  more  secure 
homes.^  The  islands  were  but  sparsely  settled  and  required 
fresh  capital  and  settlers.^    Their  economic  life  had  virtually 

*  C.  O.  1/18,  104;   C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  804. 
^  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  1 180,  1392. 

'  C.  O.  1/42,  36 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  222,  223. 

*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1788;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  521,  522.  In  1668,  An- 
tigua petitioned  that  for  some  years  it  might  be  a  free  port  for  all  friendly 
nations.    C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1687. 

(2) 


i 


34 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


to  begin  anew.  The  comparative  insignificance  of  these 
islands  is  concretely  manifested  by  the  fact  that  in  1670 
the  rent  of  the  farm  of  the  export  duties  in  Barbados  was 
ten  times  that  of  the  Leeward  Islands. 

The  Leeward  Islands  objected  to  their  political  connection 
with  Barbados,  claiming  that  their  interests  were  subordi- 
nated to  those  of  this  rich  colony,  which  was  not  desirous 
that  the  resources  of  competing  islands  should  be  developed.^ 
Despite  the  opposition  of  Lord  Willoughby,  the  English 
government  granted  this  demand  for  separation;  and,  in 
167 1,  Sir  Charles  Wheler  was  appointed  Govemor-in-Chief 
of  the  Leeward  Islands,  which  thereafter  constituted  a 
separate  jurisdiction.^  Wheler  was  an  ardent  mercantilist, 
and  urged  an  even  more  extensive  system  of  commercial 
control  than  the  one  in  force,^  but  his  conduct  being  in  other 

1  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  97,  98;  Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  2441,  f.  8**. 
In  167 1,  while  at  Barbados  on  his  way  to  assume  the  government  of  Jamaica, 
Sir  Thomas  Lynch  wrote  to  Lord  Ariington:  'Nobody  here  thinks  of  St. 
Kitts  or  the  Leeward  Isles,  but  judges  it  oleum  et  opera  perdere  to  endeavour 
their  settlement.'    C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  223. 

^  Ibid.  pp.  119,  120,  126,  127,  157. 

'In  1 67 1,  in  his  answers  to  the  detailed  inquiries  of  the  Council  for 
Foreign  Plantations,  Wheler  wrote  that  so  much  cotton  and  indigo  were 
produced  in  these  islands  that  he  hoped  His  Majesty  would  favor  them  by 
prohibiting  the  importation  into  England  of  Cyprus  cotton  and  East  India 
indigo,  which  robbed  England  of  money.  He  further  added  that  in  his 
government  was  "noe  manufacture,  nor  shall  be  while  I  am  Govemour, 
unless  I  have  further  Commands  therein."  He  pointed  out  that  the  exports 
of  these  islands  could  all  be  exchanged  for  English  merchandise  if  the 
English  merchants  would  do  their  part,  but  that  instead  Irish  beef  and 
New  England  fish  had  to  be  bought.  "I  aske  the  English  merchant  if 
euer  he  failed  yet  of  vending  whatsoeuer  he  brought  to  Neius  of  Pease, 
beefe,  Bisquett,  flower,  butter.  Cheese?   how  Comes  it  to  pass  then,  y^ 


BARBADOS  AND  THE   LEEWARD  ISLANDS 


35 


respects  unsatisfactory  —  he  was  guilty  of  "many  indis- 
creet managements,"  says  Evelyn  — he  was  in  the  very 
year  of  his  appointment  recalled.^  In  1672,  Lieutenant- 
Colonel  William  Stapleton  was  appointed  to  succeed  him.^ 
During  this  public-spirited  soldier's  efi&cient  administration 
of  nearly  fourteen  years,  the  islands  increased  greatly  in 
wealth  and  prosperity.^ 

At  the  date  of  their  separation  from  Barbados  and  for 
a  considerable  time  thereafter,  Nevis,  a  small  island  of  but 
fifty  square  miles,  was  the  most  highly  developed  of  these 
communities  and  was  the  chief  centre  of  trade.  The 
produce  of  Antigua  and  Montserrat  was  regularly  sent 
there  for  export.^  Of  the  other  islands  of  this  group,  Mont- 
Ireland  does  interlope  in  these  particulars?",  English  salted  sahnon,  he 
argued,  might  drive  out  New  England  fish,  and  if  not,  then  the  New  Eng- 
land trade  could  be  prohibited.  Similarly,  he  suggested,  that  under  proper 
regulations  the  West  Indies  might  be  obUged  to  buy  only  EngUsh  beef, 
which  would  raise  gentlemen's  rents  in  England  and  make  the  land-tax 
less  burdensome.    C.  O.  1/27,  52 ;   C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  165,  287-292. 

iC.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  27s,  276,  333;  Evelyn,  Aug.  15  and  Nov.  14, 
1671. 

2  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  274,  27s,  300,  301,  33i>  333,  334- 

3  In  1684,  the  Council  of  St.  Kitts  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  that 
they  understood  that  Stapleton  was  soUciting  to  be  relieved  of  the  govern- 
ment and  begged  them  not  to  accede  to  this  request.  If  this  petition 
arrived  too  late,  they  prayed  that  his  successor  might  be  an  experienced 
soldier.  The  Council  of  Nevis  sent  a  similar  petition.  On  May  7,  1684, 
the  Lords  of  Trade  took  notice  of  'the  too  great  forwardness  of  these  Islands 
in  meddling  with  the  King's  intentions  as  to  the  appointment  of  a  new 
Governor.'  Ibid.  1681-1685,  pp.  582,  583,  587,  628.  In  1685,  Stapleton 
returned  to  England,  and  the  following  year  he  died  in  France,  where  he 
was  taking  a  cure.    Ibid.  1685-1688,  pp.  127,  229. 

*  C.  O.  1/27,  52 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  291,  292.  In  1676,  Stapleton 
estimated  the  value  of  the  estates  of  the  planters  and  the  wealth  of  the 


i;. 


^'' 


'M 


ii 


li 


36 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL   SYSTEM 


serrat  was  in  good  shape,  as  the  French,  out  of  a  fellow  feel- 
ing for  the  Catholic  Irish  there  —  so  it  was  alleged  —  had 
refrained  from  inflicting  much  damage  during  the  war.^ 
Moreover,  it  had  received  a  number  of  refugees  from  the 
EngKsh  settlement  in  St.  Kitts.^  Its  possibiHties  were, 
however,  small,  as  its  area  was  even  more  insignificant  than 
that  of  Nevis.  The  EngHsh  colony  on  St.  Kitts  was  em- 
broiled in  constant  altercations  with  its  French  neighbors; 
and  Antigua,  which  still  continued  to  grow  tobacco  on  a 
comparatively  extensive  scale,  was  suffering  from  the  low 
price  of  this  commodity.^  The  population  of  these  islands 
was  at  this  time  very  sparse.  The  whites  numbered  roughly 
about  6000,  of  whom  3500  were  capable  of  bearing  arms, 
and  the  slaves  amounted  approximately  to  3000.'*  Nevis, 
it  was  said  in  1671,  was  not  half  planted  for  want  of 
negroes.^    The    population,    however,    quickly    increased. 

islands  in  general  as  follows :  Nevis  £384,660 ;  St.  Kitts  £67,000 ;  Antigua 
£67,000;  Montserrat  £62,500.  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  501.  In  1680,  the 
Council  of  Montserrat  stated  that  few  ships  traded  there  and  that  a  great 
part  of  their  sugar  and  indigo  had  in  consequence  to  be  transported  in 
sloops  to  Nevis  for  export  thence.    Ibid.  1677-1680,  pp.  574,  575. 

1  MSS.  of  Earl  of  Egmont  (H.M.C.  1909)  II,  p.  17. 

^  C.  O.  1/26,  73 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  226,  227. 

3  C.  O.  1/26,  73 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  226,  227,  288 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p. 
582;  Cal.  Dom.  1675-1676,  p.  293;  ibid.  1676-1677,  p.  312;  ibid.  1677- 
1678,  pp.  328,  349.  At  this  time,  tobacco  and  sugar  were  used  as  alternate 
standards  of  value  in  Antigua.  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  274,  320.  In  1685 
was  shipped  from  this  island  to  England,  on  account  of  the  4^  per  cent 
revenue,  some  tobacco  which  did  not  realize  enough  to  pay  the  freight  and 
other  charges.    Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  10,  f.  49. 

*  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  521,  522 ;  C.  O.  1/26,  73 ;  ibid.  1/29, 14  i;  C.  C.  1669- 
1674,  pp.  226,  227,  391-393- 

^  C.  O.  1/27,  52 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  291. 


|: 


BARBADOS  AND  THE  LEEWARD  ISLANDS 


37 


In  1678,  there  were  in  all  10,500  whites  and  8500  negroes 
in  the  four  main  islands  of  this  group.^ 

This  increase  in  population  was  naturally  accompanied  by 
a  larger  trade.  The  products  of  the  Leeward  Islands  were 
in  1 67 1  far  more  diversified  than  those  of  Barbados.  In 
addition  to  sugar  —  the  chief  commodity  —  tobacco,  ginger, 
and  indigo  were  grown  on  a  comparatively  extensive  scale.^ 
As  time  passed,  tobacco  was  virtually  entirely  abandoned 
except  in  Antigua,  and  the  other  crops  became  less  and 
less  important,  while  sugar  assumed  a  dominant  position.^ 
In  1676,  according  to  Stapleton,*  the  chief  products  were 
sugar,  tobacco,  and  indigo,  and  only  insignificant  quan- 
tities of  cotton  and  ginger  were  exported.    About  3600 


St.  Kitts  . 
Nevis  .    . 
Montserrat 
Antigua    . 


Negroes 

1436 

3849 
992 

2172 


8449 


C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  266.  See  also  Hid.  pp.  222,  223 ;  C.  O.  1/42,  36. 
Naturally  this  does  not  include  the  French  pnjpulation  of  St.  Kitts. 

^  C.  O.  1/26,  73;  ibid.  1/29,  141 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  226,  227,  392. 
In  1680,  the  Council  of  Montserrat  stated  that  the  scarcity  of  negroes  and 
white  servants  compelled  the  inhabitants  to  plant  a  little  tobacco  (which 
was  of  poor  quality  and  of  little  value)  and  indigo  (whose  price  was  low), 
and  that  as  a  consequence  the  people  were  kept  poor.  C.  C.  1677-1680, 
PP-  S74j  575-  For  details  of  the  amounts  of  sugar,  tobacco,  cotton,  and  indigo 
exported  from  Montserrat  in  1 683-1 684,  see  C.  O.  1/54,  Part  I,  9 ;  C.  C. 
1681-1685,  P  627. 

3  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  627. 

*  C.  O.  1/38,  65;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  500. 


t ' 


i; 


'  I 


1; 


1 


ll 


3^ 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL   SYSTEM 


tons^  of  sugar  were  shipped  yearly  to  England,  as  op- 
posed to  not  more  than  40  tons  exported  to  New  Eng- 
land, New  York,  and  Virginia.  From  England  was  imported 
merchandise  to  the  value  of  £50,000.  The  imports  of 
wine  from  the  Madeiras  and  of  horses  and  provisions  from 
Scotland,  Ireland,  and  New  England  amounted  to  about 
£20,000  yearly.  Thus,  in  general,  the  trade  of  these  settle- 
ments followed  the  same  course  as  that  of  Barbados.  Not 
being  self-supporting  and  having  no  manufactures,  these 
islands  exported  a  large  proportion  of  their  produce,  secur- 
ing in  return  provisions,  European  goods,  and  slaves.^  From 
England  were  obtamed  manufactures  and  also  food-stuffs, 
such  as  beef  and  pork;  from  the  Madeiras,  wine;  from 
Africa,  negroes;  from  Ireland,  beef,  butter,  and  candles; 
from  the  New  England  colonies,  horses,  lumber,  fish,  and 
provisions  of  various  sorts,  such  as  peas,  bread,  beef,  and 
cider.3  The  great  bulk  of  the  trade  was  with  England, 
where  was  shipped  most  of  the  sugar  produced.* 

In  1672,  Stapleton   said  that  about  a   hundred   ships, 


1  According  to  contemporary  estimates,  the  total  sugar  output  of  the 
French  islands  was  in  1674  only  12,000,000  pounds  and  in  1682,  18,000,000 
pounds.     S.  L.  Mims,  Colbert's  West  India  Policy,  p.  280. 

2  From  Oct.  4,  1682,  to  Feb.  2,  1684,  were  imported  'into  St.  Kitts 
339^  tons  of  provisions.     C.  O.  1/53,  87;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  627. 

3  C.  O.  1/47,  32. 

*  Of  34  vessels  arriving  in  St.  Kitts  from  Oct.  4,  1682,  to  Feb.  2, 
1684,  23  were  either  EngUsh  or  Irish  and  11  belonged  to  the  continental 
colonies.  As  the  colonial  vessels  were  far  smaller  than  the  others,  the 
disparity  is  much  greater  than  these  figures  seemingly  indicate.  C.  O. 
I/S3,  87.  See  also  C.  O.  1/47,  32;  ibid.  1/64,  134;  ibid.  1/49,  Part  I, 
18;  ibid.  1/54,  Part  I,  9. 


BARBADOS  AND  THE  LEEWARD  ISLANDS 


39 


all  less  than  200  and  most  of  them  under  100  tons,  came 
yearly  from  Europe  and  New  England  to  supply  the 
islands  and  to  take  off  their  produce.^  Six  years  later, 
another  authority  stated  that  the  Leeward  Islands  con- 
sumed "greate  quantities  of  Comodities  and  Manufac- 
tures and  load  off  yearly  some  two  hundred  Sail  of  Ships 
with  Sugar  Tobacco  and  Indigo  considerable  to  His  Ma*^^ 
Customs  Revenue."  According  to  this  writer,  these  islands 
were  in  themselves  worth  one  million  sterling,  and  more- 
over their  loss  to  the  French  would  endanger  Barbados.^ 
So  prosperous  was  this  federal  colony  that  the  jealousy 
of  opulent  Barbados  was  aroused.  In  1683,  Sir  Richard 
Button  reported  that  the  people  in  his  government  were 
little  interested  in  the  welfare  of  the  Leeward  Islands, 
which  they  thought  were  *  already  growing  too  fast  upon 
them,'  and  that  they  would  be  content  to  see  them  lessened 
rather  than  advanced.^ 

During  the  period  of  their  political  connection  with  Bar- 
bados there  was  considerable  evasion  of  the  laws  of  trade 
and  navigation  in  the  Leeward  Islands.  Sir  Thomas  L3nich 
reported  in  1671  that  most  of  the  produce  of  Montserrat 

^Ibid.  1/29,  14! ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  393.  Cf.  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p. 
289.  In  1676,  Stapleton  repeated  this  statement.  C.  O.  1/38,  65;  C.  C. 
1675-1676,  p.  501. 

^  C.  O.  1/42,  36;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  222,  232. 
C.  C.  1681-1685,  P-  181.  Cf.  ibid.  pp.  96,  97,  140.  One  factor  retard- 
ing the  rapid  development  of  these  islands  was  their  close  proximity  to  the 
French  and  the  virtually  incessant  hostilities  with  them.  A  number  of 
English  ships  were  seized  on  trivial  grounds.  These  difficulties  were  greatly 
mitigated  by  the  Anglo-French  treaty  of  neutrality  concluded  in  1686. 
C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  133,  134,  301. 


'I 


ii 


40 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


and  Antigua  was  carried  to  St.  Eustatius  by  the  Dutch, 
and  that  the  preceding  year  these  traders  had  thus  secured 
nearly  400,000  pounds  of  tobacco.^  The  first  Governor  of 
the  newly  organized  colony,  Sir  Charles  Wheler,  tried  to 
remedy  this,  and  enforced  the  law  vigorously.  Early  in 
1672,  he  wrote  to  the  English  government  that,  at  the  tune 
of  his  arrival,  there  were  in  Nevis  'all  sorts  of  shipping,  but 
that  now  there  were  none  but  EngHsh-built  vessels  all  trad- 
ing accordmg  to  the  Act  of  Navigation,  yet  their  number 
was  not  less.'  He  further  stated  that  last  year  some  mill- 
ions of  pounds  of  sugar  produced  in  these  islands  had  been 
shipped  to  Holland,  but  that  this  year  he  hoped  there  would 
not  be  a  ton,  unless  his  deputy-governors  in  the  various 
islands  failed  in  their  duty.  He  then  remarked  that  this 
had  not  been  accompUshed  in  eight  months  without  hold- 
ing the  reins  very  tight,  in  consequence  of  which  'the 
merchants'  pens  have  flown  abroad  Uberally  and  falsely,' 
but  that  he  would  not  knowingly  act  against  the  law 
to  the  value  of  a  barleycorn  for  all  the  sugar  in  the  West 
Indies.^ 


>C.  O.  1/26,  73;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  226,  227.  In  1670,  Du  Lion 
wrote  to  Colbert :  "The  quantity  of  merchandise  is  so  great  at  St.  Eustatius 
that  the  Dutch  do  not  know  what  to  do  with  it  and  are  forced  to  sell  it  at 
very  low  prices  to  the  English  at  Nevis,  Montserrat  and  Antigua."  S.  L. 
Mims,  Colbert's  West  India  Pohcy,  p.  207. 

C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  339.  See  the  petition,  ibid.  p.  353,  wherein  it  was 
alleged  that  Wheler  had  arbitrarily  and  unjustly  forced  the  condemnation 
of  a  free  ship.  In  1682,  Wheler  also  complained  of  the  hardship  he  labored 
under,  writing:  "I  haue  reason  to  suspect  y^  noe  other  Gouemour  hath 
beene  sworne  but  myselfe"  to  enforce  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation.  As 
a  consequence,  for  aught  he  could  see,  masters  and  merchants  punished 


BARBADOS  AND  THE  LEEWARD  ISLANDS 


41 


Wheler's  successor,  Stapleton,  was  equally  diligent  m 
enforcing  the  law.  In  1679,  he  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade 
that  he  knew  of  no  violator  of  the  laws  of  trade  and  naviga- 
tion in  late  years  who  had  not  been  prosecuted,  and  that  all 
precautions  were  being  taken  to  prevent  illegal  trade.^  In 
fact,  the  trade  regulations  were  occasionally  enforced  with 

by  him  might  trade  freely  to  the  other  islands.  Even  his  deputy-governors 
might  permit  such  illegal  trade  and,  as  a  result,  Wheler  feared  that  this 
would  drive  trade  away  from  St.  Kitts  where  he  resided.  C.  0.  1/28,  9; 
C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  327,  328. 

1  Bonds,  he  wrote,  were  taken  accordmg  to  law  from  all  that  had  not 
certificates  that  these  bonds  for  the  enumerated  commodities  had  been 
given  in  England,  and  these  certificates  were  carefully  examined.    Further- 
more, all  the  deputy-governors,  marshals,  secretaries,  and  customs  officials, 
as  well  as  he  himself,  had  taken  the  oaths  to  obey  these  laws.    In  conclu- 
sion, he  wrote  that  Hheir  Lordships  kind  admonishment  of  the  penalties 
he  might  incur  by  wUful  neglect  of  the  Act  are  too  fresh  in  his  mind  to  aUow 
him  to  fail  in  his  duty  in  respect  of  the  Acts ;  5000  1.  fine  and  incapacity  to 
serve  his  sovereign  would  make  a  great  hole  in  his  estate,  and  he  would  rather 
resign  than  have  the  least  complaint  of  him  made  with  any  colour  of  jus- 
tice.'   C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  397.    The  following  year,  the  Lords  of  Trade 
wrote  to  Stapleton  that  they  had  heard  that  some  goods  had  been  imported 
into  St.  Kitts  in  a  Dutch  vessel.    In  reply,  Stapleton  wrote:  *I  protest 
before  God  that  there  is  no  such  thing  really  as  goods  brought  by  a  Dutch 
ship  to  English  St.  Christophers  —  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  as  far 
as  any  negative  can  be  sworn  to.'    Ibid.  pp.  475,  526,  527.    In  1680  also, 
the  CouncU  of  St.  Kitts  stated  that  their  'trade  inward  and  outward 
was  carried  forward  very  regularly  by  the  merchants,  conformable  to  your 
orders  and  to  the  Acts  of  Trade  and  Navigation.'    Ibid.  p.  571.    A  letter 
of  admonition  sent  in  the  King's  name  to  Stapleton  in  1679  had  stated 
that  information  had  been  received  in  England  that  "great  quantities  of 
European  goods  are  by  remissness  of  the  officers  employed  under  you  im- 
ported into  our  islands  under  your  Government"  by  ships  directly  from 
New  England,  Scotland,  Ireland,  and  other  parts,  and  that  several  of  these 
vessels  frequently  exported  the  enumerated  goods  without  giving  bond. 
Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  pp.  1208,  1209. 


t^ 


42 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


*i  I 


a  diligence  that  appears  excessive.^   Thus,  in  1682,  Stapleton 
ordered  a  New  England  vessel  trading  at  St.  Kitts  to  be 
seized,  because  a  native  of  France  was  a  part  owner.    But 
as  this  Frenchman  had  received  letters  of  naturalization 
from  Lord  Culpeper,  the  Governor  of  Virginia,  Stapleton 
deferred  execution  of  the  sentence  of  condemnation  and 
wrote  to  England  for  instructions.    Acting  on  the  opinion 
of  Chief  Justice  North,  that  naturaUzation  in  any  colony 
was  only  local,  the  Lords  of  Trade  decided  that  the  con- 
demnation was  just  and  ordered  it  carried  into  effect.^ 
Similarly,  in  1685,  was  received  by  the  English  government 
a  petition  from  one  Arnall,  whose  ship  and  bond  had  been 
forfeited  because  he  had  carelessly  and  in  ignorance  neglected 
to  bring  the  necessary  certificate  from  Boston  to  Antigua. 
Sir  WilHam  Stapleton  recommended  Arnall  as  a  fit  object 
for  royal  mercy;  and,  as  no  prejudice  had  been  sustained 
and  the  violation  of  the  law  was  merely  a  technical  one,  the 
forfeiture  was  remitted.^    Despite  Stapleton's  zeal  there 
is  good  reason  to  believe  that  there  were  occasional  viola- 
tions of  the  law  which  escaped  his  attention,  and  some 
which  he  was  unable  to  check  in  a  government  of  such 
geographical  formation  and  location  as  was  his.     These  isl- 


1  In  1681,  Stapleton  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  that  the  orders  he 
had  received  from  the  Treasury  not  to  remit  any  fines  or  forfeitures  would 
work  hardship ;  for,  if  a  man  transgressed  the  Acts  of  Trade  and  Naviga- 
tion and  imported  something  illegal  in  his  canoe,  he  lost  it  and  then  could 
not  support  his  family.     C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  96,  97. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  198,  211,  243,  250,  258,  346;  P.  C.  Cal.  II,  p.  38;  Blathwayt, 
Journal  I,  f.  102. 

»  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  71,  79,  81,  B>^,  116. 


.vi 


BARBADOS  AND  THE  LEEWARD  ISLANDS  43 

ands  afforded  too  many  tempting  opportunities  to  evade  the 
customs  officials.  Moreover,  they  had  as  close  neighbors 
the  possessions  of  France  and  the  United  Provinces,  and  it 
was  a  virtual  impossibihty  to  stop  all  trade  between  them.^ 
In  1685,  Stapleton  left  the  islands  for  Europe,  where  he 
died  in  the  following  year.  His  successor.  Sir  Nathaniel 
Johnson,  who  is  better  known  from  his  later  connection  with 
CaroUna,2  did  not  assume  the  government  until  1687. 
During  the  interval,  the  colony  was  in  the  charge  of  the 
deputy-governors  of  the  separate  islands,^  and  the  law 
was  no  longer  so  strictly  enforced.  In  1686  arrived  in 
the  Leeward  Islands  Captain  St.  Lo  of  H.M.S.  Dartmouth, 
with  instructions  to  prevent  interloping  and  also  illegal 
trade  in  general.*  He  soon  became  involved  in  an  acri- 
monious quarrel  with  the  Deputy-Governor  of  Nevis,  Sir 
James  Russell.  Both  parties  forwarded  detailed  complaints 
to  England.^    Russell  accused  St.  Lo  of  continual  disobedi- 

1  In  1682,  Governor  Lynch  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  that,  if  Tobago 
were  setUed  by  the  Duke  of  Courland,  it  would  be  suppUed  by  the  Dutch, 
'who  can. sell  European  goods  thirty  per  cent,  cheaper  than  we,  and  will 
pay  dearer  for  American  goods'  and  consequently  this  island  would  supply 
Barbados  with  sloops  and  ruin  the  trade  with  England.  He  further  added : 
'The  neighbourhood  of  Statia,  Saba,  Curafoa,  and  the  French  islands  to 
our  Leeward  Islands  has  done  the  customs  and  trade  of  England  much 
hurt.*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  285.  It  was  naturaUy  also  impossible  to  pre- 
vent trade  between  the  French  and  Enghsh  colonies  in  St.  Kitts,  and  France 
even  recognized  its  legahty.  S.  L.  Mims,  Colbert's  West  India  Policy, 
pp.  91,  192,  216-218. 

2  McCrady,  South  Carolina,  1670-1719,  p.  368. 

^    '  In  addition  to  the  deputies  in  the  four  chief  islands,  there  were  also 

m  1685  deputy-governors  in  AnguiUa,  Tortola,  and  Barbuda.    C.  C.  i68q- 
1688,  p.  132. 

'  Ibid.  p.  146.  5  jijid,  pp.  311,  312^  363,  364,  378,  379,  399,  400. 


w 


1>' 


:H 


w 


44 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


ence  to  the  instructions  issued  by  him/  which  St.  Lo  denied 
and,  in  his  turn,  charged  Russell  with  countenancing  viola- 
tions of  the  laws  of  trade.^    According  to  St.  Lo,  Dutch 
vessels,  on  pretext  of  watering,  stopped  at  the  English  islands, 
and,  while  there,  managed  to  smuggle  ashore  the  bulk  of 
their  cargoes  to  the  manifest  loss  of  the  revenue  and  to  the 
detriment  of  the  Enghsh  merchants,  who  could  not  sell  so 
cheaply  smce  they  had  paid  customs  duties  in  England. 
These  Dutch  ships  then  proceeded  to  St.  Eustatius,  whence, 
after  being  laden  with  sugar  clandestinely  imported  from 
the  EngKsh  islands,  they  sailed  for  Holland.^    In  addition, 
St.  Lo  claimed  that  most  of  the  brandy  and  French  wines 
consiuned  in  these  islands  was  illegally  imported.*    On 
accoimt  of  the  number  of  bays  and  inlets,  he  added,  the  cus- 
toms officers  could  not  stop  this  illegal  trade  unless  they 
had  several  small  and  swift  vessels  to  examine  all  sloops  and 
boats  passing  to  and  fro.    In  connection  with  this  memorial 
of  St.  Lo,  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  reported  that 
they  could  not  acquit  the  governors  from  connivance  in 
this  illegal  trade,  and  in  especial  pointed  out  that  they  had 
advice  that  Sir  James  Russell  in  one  instance  had  refused 
to  send  the  frigate  on  the  Leeward  Island  station  to  prevent 
a  Dutch  ship  from  trading  at  Antigua.    They  advised  that 

*C.  O.  I/S9,  s6.  «  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  398-400. 

»  C.  O.  1/60,  62 ;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  378,  379. 

*  "Most  of  y«  Brandys  &  fifrench  Wines  they  drink  in  those  parts  which 
is  a  considerable  quantity  are  all  brought  either  from  Ireland  directly 
(mixt  amongst  their  Beef  Cask)  or  else  are  brought  from  French  St.  Chris- 
tophers: our  Merchants  who  pay  his  Maj*'f«  Customes  being  not  able  to 
Supply  them  at  near  y«  Price  they  so  illegally  get  them." 


BARBADOS  AND  THE  LEEWARD  ISLANDS 


45 


the  governors  be  again  instructed  as  to  their  duties  and 
that  the  captains  of  the  frigates  of  the  navy  should  have 
particular  orders  to  enforce  the  laws.^  Accordingly,  in  1687, 
the  Lords  of  Trade  wrote  to  the  Governor,  Sir  Nathaniel 
Johnson,  to  prevent  such  abuses  in  the  future  and  to  permit 
no  Dutch  vessel  to  come  to  an  English  colony  unless  driven 
there  by  storm,  pirates,  or  other  urgent  necessity.^ 

In  the  Leeward  Islands,  there  were  not  nearly  so  many 
complaints  against  the  trade  laws  as  in  Barbados.  In 
the  main,  this  was  due  to  the  fact  that  their  economic  struc- 
ture grew  up  under  this  system,  while  in  Barbados  an  already 
nearly  fully  developed  industry  had  to  adjust  itseK  to 
changed  conditions.  In  addition,  Barbados  was  well  repre- 
sented in  England  by  influential  men,  while  the  Leeward 
Islands  had  no  means  of  giving  similar  expression  to  what- 
ever grievances  they  may  have  felt.  When  the  trade  with 
the  Dutch  was  suppressed  in  167 1,  Sir  Charles  Wheler 
wrote  that  such  illegal  intercourse  was  due  to  the  fact  that 
the  English  merchants  not  only  demanded  far  larger  profits 
and  declined  to  give  credit,  but  they  also  refused  to  take 
tobacco,  which  the  poor  mostly  planted.  This,  he  said, 
"makes  the  Planter  cry  out  for  the  Kings  favour,  that  a 

*  C.  O.  1/60,  67 ;   C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  380,  382. 

^  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  384.  By  the  Treaty  of  Breda  such  access  was 
allowed  to  the  ships  of  the  contracting  parties  provided  trade  were  not 
carried  on.  Ibid.  pp.  383,  384.  Russell  died  in  the  summer  of  1687,  but 
the  illegal  trade  with  the  Dutch  did  not  disappear  with  his  removal  from  the 
scene.  A  year  later,  Governor  Johnson  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  that 
one  Crispe  was  represented  to  him  by  the  customs  officials  and  those  of 
the  Royal  African  Company  as  a  persistent  smuggler  of  negroes  and  sugar 
to  and  from  the  Dutch  islands.    Ibid.  pp.  415,  552-555. 


tl!i 


1*1 


\\^ 


46 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Shipp  or  two  onely  might  trade  w-  them  from  Holland  or 
from  them  to  Holland  or  Elsewhere/'  ^  Thereafter,  how- 
ever, such  general  complaints  virtually  disappeared.  But  it 
was  frequently  pointed  out  that  the  great  need  of  the  islands 
was  an  abundant  supply  both  of  slaves  and  of  white  ser- 
vants.^ St.  Kitts  especially  needed  a  larger  population,  be- 
cause the  presence  of  a  French  colony  on  the  same  island 
and  the  resulting  friction  drove  off  the  EngUsh  settlers  and 
prevented  fresh  immigration.  In  case  of  war  with  France, 
there  was  imminent  danger  of  the  English  colony  falling  a 
helpless  prey  to  their  better  protected  neighbors.^  In  order 
to  obviate  this,  the  English  government  in  1676  agreed  to 
contribute  to  the  expense  involved  in  transporting  three 
hundred  'malefactors'  to  the  island.*  Four  years  later,  as 
this  order  had  not  been  and  was  not  likely  to  be  executed, 
the  St.  Kitts  Coimcil  suggested  that  the  money  that  this 
would  have  required  should  be  used  to  encourage  other 
immigration  into  the  colony,  and,  further,  that  for  this 
purpose  Scottish  ships  should  be  allowed  to  trade  there.^ 
It  was  only  to  this  limited  extent  that  complaints  against 
the  colonial  system  were  registered  and  that  attempts  were 
made  to  secure  a  modification  of  the  laws. 

1  C.  O.  1/27,  52 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  287-292. 

«  C.  0. 1/29,  i4i ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  391-393 ;  C.  O.  1/38,  65 ;  C.  C. 
1675-1676,  pp.  497-502. 

3  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  I,  222,  223 ;  C.  O.  1/42,  s6. 

*  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  335,  346;  347 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  708,  709. 

^  Such  ships,  they  said,  could  give  bonds  to  obey  the  enumeration  clauses. 
C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  572,  573.  At  this  time  also,  the  Council  of  Mont- 
serrat  stated  that  the  scarcity  of  negroes  and  white  servants,  especially  the 
former,  retarded  the  development  of  the  island  and  kept  the  people  poor. 
Ibid.  pp.  574,  575. 


CHAPTER  VII 

JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS 

Great  expectations  from  Jamaica  —  Its  economic  development  —  The  buc- 
caneers and  their  suppression  —  The  logwood  trade  and  the  difficulties 
with  Spain  —  The  enumeration  of  logwood  —  Growth  of  the  colony  — 
Illegal  trade — The  settlement  of  the  Bahamas  and  their  development — 
The  Bermudas  —  Their  struggle  with  the  proprietary  Company  and  its 
downfall. 

The  determination  to  retain  Cromwell's  conquest,  Jamaica, 
even  at  the  risk  of  not  concluding  peace  with  Spain,  showed 
clearly  the  great  interest  taken  by  the  Restoration  govern- 
ment in  colonization,  more  especially  in  that  of  tropical  re- 
gions. Herein  the  Court  had  the  full  support  of  the  House 
of  Commons.^  The  development  of  plantations  that  pro- 
duced exotic  products,  such  as  sugar,  cotton,  indigo,  and 
cacao,  promised  the  greatest  advantages,  not  only  to  the 
individual  settler,^  but  also  to  the  state.  It  was  clearly 
recognized  in  those  days  that  national  strength  was  funda- 

*  Com.  Journal  VIII,  p.  163. 

^  See  Sir  Balthazar  Gerbier,  A  Sommary  Description,  manifesting  that 
greater  Profits  are  to  bee  done  in  the  hott  then  in  the  could  parts  off  the 
Coast  off  America,  published  in  1660.  In  1662,  Gerbier  gave  the  govern- 
ment some  valuable  advice  about  the  method  of  settling  Jamaica.  C.  C. 
i66i-i668,  no.  216.  On  Gerbier,  see  the  Diet,  of  Nat.  Biography.  Cf. 
also  Otto  Keyen,  Kurzer  Entwarff  von  Neu-Niederland  und  Guajana 
(einander  entgegengesetzt  um  den  Unterschied  zwischen  warmen  u.  kalten 
Landen  herauz  zu  bringen),  Leipzig,  1672.  This  work  was  translated  from 
the  Dutch. 

47 


!>• 


'    I 


|i    I 


48 


I! 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


mentally  based  upon  economic  conditions,  and  it  was  gener- 
ally held  that  foreign  commerce  was  the  ultimate  source  of 
power.i     The  bulk  of  England's  colonial  trade  was  with 
the  dominions  producing  tobacco  and  sugar,^  and  it  was 
assumed  that  any  further  development  in  this  general  direc- 
tion would  correspondingly  add  to  the  national  prosperity. 
In  view  of  the  great  economic  value  of  Barbados,  large 
hopes  were  naturally  entertained  for  Jamaica,  whose  soil 
and  climate  were  essentiaUy  similar  and  whose  area  was 
twenty-five  times  greater.    Barbados  only  somewhat  ex- 
ceeded the  size  of  the  Isle  of  Wight,  whHe  Jamaica's  area 
was  considerably  more  than  half  that  of  Wales.    During 
the  Interregnum,  every  encouragement  was  at  the  outset 
given  to  the  settlers  on  the  conquered  island,  and  a  start 
was  made  in  the  production  of  tobacco,  sugar,  cacao,  and 
cotton.3    But  little  could,  however,  be  accomphshed  during 
these  first  five  years  of  Enghsh  possession.     The  soldiers 
proved  poor  planters,^  and  moreover  were  kept  on  the  alert 
to  resist  several  Spanish  attempts  for  the  recovery  of  the 
island.    While  the  Spanish  peril  thus  necessitated  the  main- 

» English  statesmen  in  general  agreed  with  the  statement  made  in  167 1  by 
the  VeneUan  Ambassador  to  England  that  commerce  was  "  la  vera  base  aUa 
grandezza  degli  stati."  Le  Relazioni  DegU  Stati  Europei,  Serie  iv,  InghU- 
terra  (Venezia,  1863),  p.  449. 

2  "Of  aU  the  Colonies  which  these  three  European  Nations  (the  Enghsh, 
French,  and  Dutch)  have  planted  in  America,  those  that  settled  themselves 
in  the  Caribhy -Islands  are  of  greatest  account,  and  the  most  frequented 
by  Merchants,  as  being  the  most  advantageous  upon  the  score  of  Trade." 
Davies,  The  History  of  Barbados,  St  Christophers,  etc.  (London,  1666), 
p.  158. 

3  Beer,  Origins,  p.  413.  i  Q.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  109. 


4 


JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS 


49 


tenance  of  a  military  government,  this,  in  turn,  naturally 
deterred  planters  from  settling  in  Jamaica.  Finally,  during 
the  confusion  following  the  death  of  Cromwell,  the  affairs  of 
the  colony  were  perforce  somewhat  neglected,  and  the  pay 
of  the  army  of  conquest  was  in  arrear.^  The  Restoration 
statesmen  devoted  their  especial  attention  to  Jamaica  and 
devised  various  schemes  for  its  rapid  development.  The 
essential  condition  was  an  adequate  population,  for  on  the 
island  there  was  as  yet  only  a  handful  of  settlers.  Accord- 
ing to  one  estimate,  its  population  was  then  about  3350 
whites  (of  whom  2450  were  men)  and  500  negroes.^  In 
order  to  people  the  island,  the  Earl  of  Marlborough,  who 
had  been  personally  concerned  in  the  colonization  of  Santa 
Cruz,  proposed  that  emigration  from  the  other  West  Indies 
be  encouraged;  that  the  settlement  of  New  England  affairs 
be  hastened,  since  plenty  of  men  might  be  expected  thence; 
and  also  that  women  —  not  inmates  of  Newgate  and  Bride- 
well, but  poor  maids  who  burdened  the  English  parishes — 
be  transported  to  furnish  wives  for  the  planters.  In  addi- 
tion, he  suggested  that  the  commodities  of  the  island  be 
exempted  for  a  short  period  from  the  payment  of  the  Eng- 
gUsh  customs  duties.^  Several  of  these  recommendations 
were  adopted  by  the  English  government;  and,  besides,  it 
was  determined  to  establish  civil  government  in  place  of  the 
mihtary  system  that  had  been  in  force  since  the  conquest. 


n 


•.\ " 


\i\ 


.1 


ill; 


i  n 


w 


^  Ibid.  1685-1688,  p.  632. 

^Ibid.  1661-1668,  no.  204;  ibid.  1685-1688,  p.  632. 
gives  about  1000  more.    Ibid.  1 574-1660,  p.  492. 
'  Ibid.  p.  491. 


Another  account 


(2) 


50 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


The  Cromwellian  Governor,  Edward  Doyley,  was  tempo- 
rarily continued  in  office,  but  was  instructed  to  govern 
with  the  advice  of  a  council.^    Doyley  was  also  directed  to 
employ  such  ships  as  could  be  spared  from  the  task  of 
defending  the  island  in  fetching  planters  from  the  other 
colonies.2    At  the  same  time,  the  Council  for  Foreign  Plan- 
tations recommended  that  the  soldiers  in  Jamaica,  with 
the  exception  of  200,  be  allotted  land  and  be  converted 
into  planters,   and    further    that    Jamaica   be    exempted 
for  seven  years  from  paying  customs  in  England  on  all 
commodities  except   sugar,   tobacco,   cotton,  and  indigo.^ 
The  task  of  settHng  Jamaica  was  entrusted  to  Thomas, 
Lord  Windsor,  who  was  appointed  Governor  of  Jamaica  in 
1 66 1,  and  assumed  the  administration  about  a  year  later.* 
His  salary,  and  subsequently  also  the  expense  of  fortifying 
the  island,  was  made  a  charge  on  the  English  Exchequer.^ 
That  so  exceptionally  large  a  sum  as  £21,200  was  ordered 
paid  to  Lord  Windsor  for  carrying  on  the  plantation  of 
Jamaica  is  ample  proof  of  the  government's  keen  interest 
in  this  colony.^    Windsor's  instructions  were  carefully  pre- 
paredJ    By  them  ^  he  was  directed   'to  promulgate'  the 
King's  license  for  transporting  planters  from  the  neigh- 

1  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  20,  21,  22.  2  ibU,  no.  22. 

» Ibid.  nos.  5,  107.  Of  the  army  of  conquest  there  were  at  this  time 
about  2200  men  in  Jamaica.    lUd.  1574-1660,  pp.  489,  492. 

*  Pepys,  April  10,  1662. 

^  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  135, 145.  See  ako  iUd,  nos.  616,  656,  664 ;  P.  C. 
Cal.  I,  pp.  484,  485 ;  Cal.  Treasury  Books,  1660-1667,  PP-  259,  267,  303, 
589,  617,  667,  685,  720. 

«  Cal.  Treasury  Books,  1660-1667,  pp.  362,  534. 

^  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  309,  312,  313.  8  C.  C.  i66i-i668,  no.  259. 


> 


I 


JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS 


51 


boring  colonies  to  Jamaica,  to  grant  lands  on  liberal  terms, 
to  permit  the  free  exportation  of  all  goods  for  five  years, 
after  which  an  export  duty  of  five  per  cent  was  to  be  paid  to 
the  Crown.  ^  In  addition,  Windsor  was  authorized  to  call 
Assemblies  to  levy  money  and  to  make  laws,  which,  how- 
ever, were  to  be  in  force  for  only  two  years  unless  confirmed 
by  the  Crown. 

On  account  of  ill-health,  Windsor  remained  in  the  island 
but  a  very  short  time,  returning  to  England  unexpectedly, 
which  fact  made  Mr.  Bland,  one  of  the  most  prominent 
colonial  merchants  of  the  day,  and  Pepys  agree  that  "these 
young  Lords  are  not  fit  to  do  any  service  abroad.'' 2 
Pending  the  appointment  of  his  successor,  which  occasioned 
some  discussion  in  England,^  the  Deputy-Governor,  Sir 
Charles  Lyttelton,  was  in  charge  of  affairs.  During  the  ad- 
ministrations of  Windsor  and  Lyttelton,  civil  government 
was  definitely  established,  and  in  1664  the  first  Assembly  of 
the  colony  met.*  Towards  the  end  of  1663,  Lyttelton  re- 
ported that  the  island  was  more  prosperous  than  when  he 
had  arrived  somewhat  over  a  year  prior  thereto,  but  that  the 
population  was  not  increasing  rapidly.^  Since  the  Restora- 
tion a  few  settlers  had  come  from  the  other  colonies,^  and 

*  Article  xii  of  these  instructions.    C.  O.  1/16,  nos.  35,  ^6, 

2  Pepys,  Feb.  13,  1663.     See  also  Feb.  23,  1663. 

3  MSS.  of  J.  M.  Heathcote  (H.M.C.  1899),  pp.  ^^,  89. 

*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  379,  573,  810,  812. 

^  Lyttelton  wrote  that  *  since  Lord  Windsor's  arrival  not  more  than  200 
have  come  and  the  year  has  been  very  sickly,  and  carried  away  great  num- 
bers.'   Ibid.  no.  566. 

®  Ibid.  no.  267. 


<  A 


52 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


apparently  some  convicts  were  transported  from  England,^ 
but  there  was  no  influx  commensurate  with  the  immense 
opportunities  offered  by  Jamaica.^ 

In  1664,  Sir  Thomas  Modyford,  a  prominent  Barbadian 
and  a  relative  of  Monck,  was  appointed  Governor  of 
Jamaica  with  instructions  similar  to  those  issued  to  Windsor, 
and  in  addition,  for  the  further  encouragement  of  the  colony, 
providing  that  for  twenty-one  years  goods  imported  into  or 
exported  from  Jamaica  should  be  exempt  from  the  payment 
of  customs,  and  that  for  five  years  the  products  of  the  island 
could  be  imported  into  England  free  of  duty.^  When  he 
received  his  instructions,  Modyford  was  in  Barbados, 
where  he  gathered  together  as  many  settlers  for  Jamaica  as 
was  possible.  About  800  sailed  with  him,  but  he  claimed 
that  a  yearly  supply  of  1000  might  be  expected  from 
this  colony.  The  EngHsh  government  had  made  some 
provision  for  the  transportation  of  settlers  from  Bar- 
bados, but  Modyford  proposed  that  the  Crown  should  as- 
sume this  entire  expense.  Governor  Willoughby  objected 
to  this  policy,  and  requested  Lord  Arlington  to  'divert  his 
Majesty  from  giving  any  more  such  orders,  for  it  is  not 
beginning  at  the  right  end  to  improve  his  interest  in  these 

1  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  310,  314,  315. 

*  In  1664,  the  President  of  the  Jamaica  Council,  Thomas  Lynch,  wrote 
that  the  island  was  in  a  hopeful  state,  but  that  its  population  did  not  ex- 
ceed 5000.     C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  744. 

3  Ihid.  nos.  664,  998,  1003, 1165;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  515,  516;  C.  O.  1/26, 
15.  Although  the  five  years  had  already  expu-ed,  on  June  18,  1669,  the 
Treasury  instructed  the  Farmers  of  the  Customs  to  allow  the  Mary  &• 
Jane  of  Jamaica  to  unload  free  of  duties,  since  this  vessel  had  been  delayed 
by  storms.     Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  i,  f.  166. 


JAMAICA  AND   THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS 


S3 


parts  for  he  doth  but  take  out  of  his  right  pocket  to  put 
into  his  left.  Europe  is  the  magazine  of  people,'  he  con- 
tinued, '  and  from  thence  his  Majesty  ought  to  send  them  a 
constant  supply  every  year.'  In  addition,  before  departing 
for  Jamaica,  Modyford  wrote  a  careful  letter  to  the  English 
government  on  the  best  way  of  rapidly  peopling  that  island, 
advising  the  King  to  *be  prodigal  in  granting  the  first 
million  acres,'  and  that,  until  these  be  planted,  exports 
from  England  should  be  exempt  from  customs.  He  further 
proposed  that  free  trade  should  be  allowed  with  all  friendly 
nations,  and  that  all  servants  for  the  colony  should  be  trans- 
ported at  the  expense  of  the  government.^  Of  these  sugges- 
tions, the  English  government  agreed  only  to  that  about  the 
liberal  granting  of  land.^ 

During  Sir  Thomas  Modyford's  administration,  which 
lasted  for  seven  years,  from  1664  to  167 1,  the  colony  made 
some  progress.  From  an  absolute  standpoint  the  develop- 
ment was  considerable,'  but  it  was  insignificant  in  contrast 
with  the  potential  capacities  of  so  fertile  and  large  an  island. 
The  natural  resources  of  Jamaica  were  more  varied  than 
those  of  the  other  West  Indies,  and  in  addition  the  colony  was 

^  C.  O.  1/18,  65 ;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  739,  741,  764 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p. 

384. 

*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  784. 

'  In  1664,  the  population  was  but  5000,  while  in  1670,  according  to  an 
estimate  based  upon  an  apparently  careful  survey  of  the  island,  it  was 
15,000.  Lynch  said  that  this  latter  estimate,  which  had  been  prepared 
for  Modyford,  was  only  a  guess.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  earlier 
in  the  same  year  Modyford  had  sent  another  account  to  England,  accord- 
ing to  which  the  inhabitants,  including  2500  negroes,  numbered  in  all  but 
8200.     Ihid.  1669-1674,  pp.  52,  104,  341. 


54 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


not  SO  dependent  on  other  communities  for  its  food  supply. 
At  the  outset,  the  chief  products  were  sugar,  cacao,  and 
tobacco,  and,  as  was  usual  in  the  early  stages  of  colonial 
economic  life,  these  staples  were  used  as  standards  of  value 
in  commercial  transactions.^  In  addition,  cotton,  indigo, 
pimento,  dyeing-woods,  ginger,  and  a  variety  of  drugs  were 
produced.2  Furthermore,  in  1668,  the  English  government 
ordered  that  the  planting  of  pepper,  cloves,  and  other 
spices  be  encouraged,  but  this  attempt  to  make  of  Jamaica 
a  rival  of  the  Dutch  Spice  Islands  of  the  Far  East  was  not 
successful.^  Tobacco  soon  ceased  to  be  grown  for  export, 
and  the  most  profitable  products  for  this  purpose  were  found 
to  be  cacao,  sugar,  and  indigo.^  Besides  these  exotic  prod- 
ucts, the  island  raised  a  considerable  quantity  of  com, 
potatoes,  peas,  and  other  provisions,  and  was  well  stocked 
with  cattle  and  hogs.^  A  portion  of  its  food  supply  was, 
however,  imported  from  New  England.® 

1  In  1661,  the  Governor  and  Council  ordered  that  sugar  should  pass  at  255. 
a  cwt.,  tobacco  and  cacao  at  4d.  a  pound.  In  1662,  Lord  Windsor  changed 
these  valuations.     C.  O.  140/1,  ff.  14,  15;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  108,  374. 

2  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  810. 

*  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  487,  488.  In  1664,  the  Committee  for  Jamaica  was 
ordered  to  consider  the  planting  of  "Coco-Nutts,  Erecting  Iron- works  there, 
and  at  Virginia,  and  about  making  Pitch  and  Tarr,  and  whatsoever  els 
they  shaU  thinke  fitt."  Ibid.  p.  384.  In  1672,  the  CouncU  of  Plantations 
"entered  on  inquiries  about  improving  the  Plantations  by  silks,  galls, 
flax,  senna,  &c.,  and  considered  how  nutmegs  and  cinnamon  might  be 
obtained,  and  brought  to  Jamaica,  that  soil  and  climate  promising  suc- 
cess."   Evelyn,  Feb.  12,  1672. 

^C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  815. 

^  Ibid.  nos.  810,  1023 ;   C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  104,  105. 

*  Ibid.  p.  5. 


JAMAICA  AND   THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS  55 

During  the  first  decade  of  the  Restoration  era,  cacao 
was  the  principal  staple  of  Jamaica;  and,  as  it  was  a  typically 
Spanish  colonial  product,  which  was  grown  in  no  other  of  the 
Enghsh  colonies,  great  stress  was  laid  upon  its  encourage- 
ment.i    According  to  a  description  of  Jamaica,  of  about  the 
year  1670,  no  island  had  greater  abundance  of  cacao,  and 
the  claim  was  made  that  with  good  management  it  would 
be  easy   to  'beat   out'  the   Spaniard.^    Another  writer ^ 
said  that  "the  meanest  Labourer  in  Jamaica  compounds 
his  Morning-draughts"   of    chocolate  —  at    that    time  a 
considerable    luxury    in    Europe.      Sugar    was    gradually 
assuming  an  ever  increasing  importance  in   the  colony's 
economic  life,  and  was  in  the  main  shipped  to  England  in 
competition  with  that  of  the  other  West  Indies.*    Accord- 
ing to  a  Jamaica  correspondent  of  John  Winthrop,  Jr., 
indigo  in  1671  yielded  "the  principaU  profit,''  but  he  be- 
lieved that  "in  shorte  space"  the  price  would  decline  greatly.^ 
In  1670,  there  were  in  Jamaica   57   sugar  works  with  a 
yearly  output  of  17 10  thousand-weight;  47  cacao  walks, 
yielding  188,000  pounds  of  nuts;  and  49  works,  producing 
490  hundredweight  of  indigo.^     Twenty  ships  of  over  80 

^  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  259,  664;  ibid.  1675-1676,  pp.  134,  135;  ibid. 
1669-1674,  pp.  52,  53,  145-147 ;  C.  O.  138/1,  ff.  88-95. 
^  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  151. 

*  E.  Hickeringill,  Jamaica  Viewed  (ist  ed.  London,  1661),  pp.  23,  24. 

*  Cf.  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1660-1667,  pp.  339,  451. 

^  "AU  matters  considered,"  he  added,  "I  iudge  our  husbandmen  in  Con- 
necticut doe  Hue  better  then  the  greater  part  of  the  inhabitants  heare." 
Winthrop  Papers  II,  p.  152. 

«  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  104,  105.  Cf.  Richard  Blome,  A  Description  of 
the  Island  of  Jamaica  (London,  1672),  pp.  8-10.    Blome  said  that  Jamaica 


i\, 


56 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL   SYSTEM 


tons  were  required  that  year  to  take  away  Jamaica's  prod- 
uce.^ But  compared  with  Barbados,  this  development  was 
insignificant.  In  fact,  the  enormous  resources  of  Jamaica 
had  been  barely  tapped.  Of  the.  total  land  in  the  colony 
only  a  small  portion  had  been  granted  to  private  owners, 
and  most  of  this  was  in  an  uncultivated  state.^  The  slow 
progress  made  in  settling  the  island  was  primarily  due  to 
the  continuance  of  the  war  with  Spain.  The  large  profits 
derived  from  privateering  diverted  the  colony's  energies 
from  the  more  humdrum  processes  of  agricultural  develop- 
ment. Until  1671,  the  most  lucrative  pursuit  was  warfare 
on  the  commerce  and  colonies  of  Spain. 

At  this  time,  the  waters  of  the  Caribbean  swarmed  with 
self-confessed  pirates  and  with  nearly  equally  lawless  priva- 
teers who,  on  the  strength  of  conMnissions  from  French, 
Spanish,  Dutch,  and  English  colonial  governors,  preyed  upon 
commerce.^  When  in  1660  the  monarchy  was  restored, 
England  and  Spain  were  still  at  war.  Peace  negotiations 
were  forthwith  opened,  but  on  account  of  the  determina- 
tion of  the  Restoration  government  to  retain  Jamaica,  they 
were  not  brought  to  a  successful  conclusion;  and  for  a  decade 
longer  informal  and  irregular  hostiHties  between  the  two 

sugar  outsold  that  of  Barbados  by  ss.  a  cwt. ;  that  cacao  was  the  principal 
and  most  beneficial  product  and  that  in  time  Jamaica  would  become  "the 
only  noted  place  for  that  Commodity  in  the  world." 

*  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  52. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  95,  96,  98-104,  107. 

'There  have  been  recently  published  two  reliable  accounts  of  their 
activities :  C.  H.  Haring,  The  Buccaneers  in  the  West  Indies ;  and  Violet 
Barbour,  Privateers  and  Pirates  of  the  West  Indies,  in  Am.  Hist.  Rev. 
XVI,  3. 


JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS  57 

nations  continued  in  a  desultory  manner  in  the  West  Indies. 
Shortly   after  Lord   Windsor  was   appointed   to   succeed 
Doyley,  the  CromwelHan   Governor  of  Jamaica,  he  was 
instructed  to  preserve  good  correspondence  and  free  com- 
merce with  the  Spanish  colonies,  but,  if  this  were  refused, 
to  settle  such  trade  by  force.^    On  being  denied  this  privi- 
lege, and  it  being  feared  that  the  Spaniards  might  send  an  ex- 
pedition to  reconquer  Jamaica,^  Windsor  prepared  an  armed 
force  which,  in  1662,  captured  and  plundered   Santiago 
in  Cuba.^     In  the  following  year,  a  successful  assault  was 
made  on  the  town  of  Campeachy  on  the  mainland.     In 
addition,   English  privateers,   duly  commissioned    by  the 
colonial  authorities,  were  actively  seizing  Spanish   vessels 
in  the  Caribbean.*     Such  exploits  as  the  attack  on  Cuba 
embarrassed   the   EngHsh  government    and    exceeded    its 
intention.    Accordingly,  in  1663,  instructions  were  sent  to 
the  authorities  in  Jamaica  that  no  such  enterprises  'be 
pursued  for  the  future.'^    Again  the  following  year,  when 
Sir  Thomas  Modyford  was  appointed  Governor  of  Jamaica, 
he  was  enjoined  not  to  issue  any  letters  of  marque  and  to 
preserve  good  correspondence  with  the  Spanish  colonies.^ 
A  few  months  later,  Charles  II  reiterated  these  instructions, 
expressing  extreme  dissatisfaction  at  the  daily  complaints 
of  depredations  committed  by  Jamaicans  on  Spaniards,  and 
ordering  the  Governor  to  forbid  such  actions  and  to  'inflict 
condign  punishment  on  offenders.'  ^    At  the  outset,  Mody- 

1  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  278.  *  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  571. 

^  Ibid.  no.  2S9.  '  Ibid.  no.  443-    C/.  no.  441. 

3  Haring,  op.  cit.  pp.  105,  106.  e  Ibid.  no.  664. 

^  Ibid.  no.  753. 


!       1 


58 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


ford  apparently  tried  to  follow  his  instructions,^  but  he  met 
with  grave  difficulties.  In  the  first  place,  the  Spanish 
colonial  governors  had  no  authority  to  admit  the  English  to 
trade,  nor,  as  an  able  Jamaican  official  pointed  out,  would 
'any  necessity  or  advantage  bring  private  Spaniards  to 
Jamaica,  for  we  and  they  have  used  too  many  mutual 
barbarisms  to  have  a  sudden  correspondence.'  ^  More- 
over, the  English  privateers,  between  1500  and  2000  hardy 
and  lawless  men  in  fourteen  or  fifteen  vessels,  could  not  be 
controlled  by  the  Governor.  As  was  pointed  out  at  the 
time,  these  privateers  could  be  suppressed  only  by  five  or 
six  men-of-war.^  Most  of  them  were  ready  to  turn  pirate 
or  to  join  the  French,  and  then  to  prey  upon  EngHsh  com- 
merce, if  their  commissions  were  taken  from  them. 

The  outbreak  of  the  Dutch  war  gave  the  privateers  a 
more  legitimate  field  for  their  activities,  and  letters  of  marque 
were  again  freely  issued  in  Jamaica.*  Some  signal  successes 
against  the  Dutch  —  St.  Eustatius  and  Saba  were  taken 
—  were  gained  by  their  efforts,^  but  in  addition  the  priva- 
teers exceeded  their  authority  and  continued  to  seize  Spanish 
vessels  and  to  plunder  Spanish  towns  on  the  Main  and  in 
Cuba.®  At  this  juncture  the  English  government  changed 
its  policy,  and,  in  the  early  summer  of  1665,  authorized  Sir 
Thomas  Modyford  to  use  his  discretion  about  issuing 
commissions  against  the  Spanish.  In  1666,  on  the  advice 
of  the  colonial  Council,  he  decided  to  issue  them  with  the 


^  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  746,  767. 
^  Ihid.  no.  744.     Cf.  no.  762. 
^  Ibid.  nos.  744,  812. 


*  Ihid.  no.  942. 

*  Ihid.  nos.  1042,  1063,  1082. 
^  Ihid.  nos.  1142,  1147. 


JAMAICA  AND   THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS  59 

object  of  Strengthening  the  colony,  for  it  was  fuUy  realized 
that  the  exceptionaUy  excellent  market  available  in  Jamaica 
for  Spanish  spoHs  would  attract  there  a  host  of  buccaneers 
of  various  nationalities.^ 

In  1667,  peace  was  concluded  between  England  and  the 
allies,  France  and  Holland,  and  thus  an  end  was  put  to  the 
half-hearted  operations  of  the  privateers  against  these  na- 
tions.    At  the  same  time  also  was  signed  a  treaty  with  Spain, 
which  recognized  England's  right  to  the  American  territories 
then  in  her  possession,  but  prohibited  trade  with  the  Span- 
ish colonies.     Rumors  of  this  proposed  treaty  had  reached 
America  already  the  preceding  year.    On  August  21,  1666,2 
Governor  Modyford  wrote  to  Lord  Arlington,  then  Secretai^ 
of  State,  that,  in  accordance  with  the  authority  specifically 
given  to  him,  he  had  since  last  March  issued  commissions 
against   the  Spaniards,  which  had  attracted  to  Jamaica 
many  people,  especiaUy  French  buccaneers,  and  had  en- 
riched and  strengthened   the  colony.     He  added  that  he 
had  heard  of  the  proposed  peace  with  Spain,  and  had  also 
received  orders  from  Albemarle  despite  this  to  employ  pri- 
vateers as  formerly,  'if  it  be  for  the  benefit  of  his  Maj- 

'Ihid.  nos.  1144,  1264.  On  Feb.  22,  1666,  the  Council  of  Jamaica 
resolved  that  it  was  to  the  interest  of  the  colony  to  issue  letters  of  marque 
agamst  the  Spaniards,  because:  i,  it  furnished  the  island  with  neces- 
sary commodities  at  low  prices  and  enabled  it  to  buy  provisions  from 
the  New  England  men ;  2,  it  attracted  many  settlers  and  'is  the  only  means 
to  keep  the  buccaneers  on  HispanioU,  Tortugas,  and  the  South  and  North 
Quays  of  Cuba  from  being  their  enemies  and  infesting  their  sea-side  planta- 
tion';  3,  'It  seems  to  be  the  only  means  to  force  the  Spaniards  in  time  to  a 
free  trade.'    IhU.  no.  1138. 

^  Ihid.  no.  1264. 


\ 


\: 


% 

ill 


''!' 


I  I  r  I 


6o 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


esty's  affairs,  which  is  really  so,  as  the  keeping  of  this 
island  is  for  his  honour  and  service.'  Modyford  further 
wrote  that  '  the  Spaniards  look  on  us  as  intruders  and  tres- 
passers wheresoever  they  find  us  in  the  Indies  and  use 
us  accordingly;  and  were  it  in  their  power,  as  it  is  fixed 
in  their  wills,  would  soon  turn  us  out  of  all  our  Planta- 
tions. .  .  It  must  be  force  alone  that  can  cut  in  sunder 
that  unneighbourly  maxim  of  their  Government  to  deny 
all  access  of  strangers.'  When,  toward  the  end  of  1667, 
the  heads  of  the  treaty  with  Spain  finally  reached  Mody- 
ford, he  was  imable  to  understand  their  exact  meaning; 
and,  as  no  specific  instructions  accompanied  them,  he  wrote 
that  he  would  not  alter  'his  position,  nor  does  he  intend 
until  further  orders.'  ^ 

In  pursuing  this  course  Modyford  assumed  a  grave  re- 
sponsibility. Although  he  had  received  no  explicit  orders 
to  stop  issuing  commissions  against  the  Spaniards,  he  knew 
full  well  that  the  Secretary  of  State,  Lord  Arlington, 
to  whom  he  was  immediately  responsible,  was  opposed  to 
such  action.^  Proceeding  under  such  a  commission,  Henry 
Morgan,  at  the  head  of  a  fleet  of  buccaneers,  inflicted  upon 
the  Spanish  Empire  the  most  stinging  blow  that  it  had  re- 
ceived since  Cromwell's  conquest  of  Jamaica.  In  1668,  after 
taking  Puerto  Principe  in  northern  Cuba,  Morgan  sailed 
to  Porto  Bello  on  the  mainland,  surprised  and  sacked  the 
city,  securing  a  large  booty  and  ransom.  Modyford  was 
somewhat  dismayed  at  the  too  signal  success  of  this  exploit 
and  wrote  to  the  Enghsh  government  that  Morgan  had 


» C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1652. 


2  Ibid.  no.  1537. 


JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS  61 

exceeded  his  instructions,  which  authorized  him  to  attack 
only  Spanish  ships  and  not  their  towns.  ^  But  fearing 
Spanish  reprisals,  Modyford  again  assumed  the  aggressive, 
and  in  1669  the  Jamaica  buccaneers  garnered  fresh  booty 
from  the  town  of  Maracaibo.^ 

The  English  government  was  placed  in  a  disagreeable 
position  by  these  actions,  which  were  clearly  contrary  to  the 
treaty  of  1667.  Bitter  complaints  from  Spain ^  and  demands 
for  satisfaction  were,  however,  answered  by  the  assertion 
that  the  Spaniards  themselves  were  not  observing  the  peace 
in  the  Indies.*  Spanish  pride  was  wounded  to  the  quick 
and  unwonted  energy  was  displayed  in  preparations  for 
reprisals,  but  in  1670/1  the  English  struck  another  severe 
blow  when  Morgan  took  Panama.^  Shortly  before  this 
event,  in  1670,  the  two  nations  had  definitely  settled  their 
differences  in  the  treaty  of  Madrid,  which  provided  for 
a  complete  cessation  of  hostilities  and  expHcitly  recognized 

^  Ibid.  no.  1850. 

2  Ibid.  no.  1867.  A  full  and  picturesque  contemporary  account  of 
the  exploits  of  Morgan  and  his  feUow  buccaneers  is  available  in  Exque- 
melin's  history,  a  well-known  book  of  which  many  editions  have  been 
published  in  various  languages  since  the  original  in  Dutch  first  appeared 
in  1678. 

'  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  I,  2. 

^^On  Oct.  I,  1668,  Modyford  wrote  to  Albemarle:  ^t  is  most  cer- 
tain that  the  Spaniards  had  full  intention  to  attempt  this  island,  but  could 
not  get  men ;  and  they  stiU  hold  the  same  minds,  and  therefore  I  cannot 
but  presume  to  say,  that  it  is  very  unequal  that  we  should  in  any  measure 
be  restrained,  while  they  are  at  liberty  to  act  as  they  please  upon  us,  from 
which  we  shall  never  be  secure  until  the  King  of  Spain  acknowledge  this 
island  to  be  his  Majesty's,  and  so  includes  it  by  name  in  the  capitulations.' 
Ibid.  1661-1668,  no.  1850.  « Ibid.  1669-1674,  pp.  72,  120-122,  142. 


i'l 


i 


1!.. 


*ii 


62 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


England's  title  to  all  her  American  possessions.  The  Eng- 
Hsh  government  was  incensed  at  Modyford's  conduct.^ 
He  was  inmaediately  dismissed  from  office  and  was  sent  to 
England  for  trial,  but  after  considerable  detention  in  the 
Tower  ultimately  escaped  punishment.^  Morgan,  likewise, 
was  ordered  home  to  answer  for  his  conduct.  His  commis- 
sion from  the  Jamaica  government  was,  however,  a  complete 
legal  justification  for  his  exploits.^  Instead  of  being  pun- 
ished, "Panama  Morgan"  was  viewed  as  a  national  hero, 
who  had  conferred  great  "Honour  to  the  Nation";  and,  as 
a  reward  for  his  services,  he  was  knighted  by  Charles  H.* 

1  On  Nov.  21,  1670,  Arlington  wrote  to  Sir  William  Godolphin, 
the  English  Ambassador  in  Spain,  that  Modyford,  on  sight  of  commissions 
issued  by  Spain  against  the  English,  "whilst  the  Matter  of  the  Treaty" 
was  in  debate,  began  a  new  war,  but  that  His  Majesty  will  quickly  put 
"an  end  to  all  his  Extravagancies  and  Follies"  by  sending  a  new  Governor 
to  Jamaica.  Colonel  Lynch,  he  added,  was  to  go  there  as  Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor with  two  frigates,  to  put  in  execution  the  government's  orders.  On 
March  9,  167 1,  Arlington  wrote  to  Godolphin:  "This  gives  me  occasion  to 
tell  you  what  Abomination  and  Scandal  His  Majesty  hath  receiv'd  upon  the 
knowledge  of  new  Violences  committed  by  Sir  Tho.  Modiford,  upon  his 
Catholick  Majesty's  Territories  in  the  West-Indies,  in  which  perhaps  he  may 
justifie  himself  to  His  said  Majesty  for  having  committed  them  within  the 
time  Umited  by  your  Treaty,  and  by  the  Provocations  he  hath  had  from  the 
Spaniards  there,  but  he  never  will  be  able  to  do  it  to  the  King  our  Master, 
it  having  been  so  contrary  to  all  his  orders."  Arhngton's  Letters  (London, 
1701)  II,  pp.  309,  319.     See  also  pp.  327,  328. 

2  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  151,  152,  238,  239,  272,  401 ;  Diet.  Nat.  Biog. 

^  Governor  Lynch,  who  vigorously  opposed  the  buccaneers,  when  sending 
Morgan  to  England,  wrote  that  he  was  'an  honest  brave  fellow,'  and  had  both 
Modyford's  and  the  Council's  commission  and  instructions,  which  they 
thought  he  had  obeyed  so  well  that  they  gave  him  pubhc  thanks.  C.  O. 
1/27,  58;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  299. 

*  Dalby  Thomas,  op.  cit.  in  Harl.  Misc.  II,  p.  364. 


JAMAICA  AND   THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS  6^ 

The  English  government  was  now  determined  to  suppress 
the  buccaneers  and  to  convert  them  into  peaceful  members 
of  society.    But  the  dragon's  teeth,  which  she  herself  had 
sown,  yielded  their  inevitable  crop.    In  1669,  John  Style, 
who  had  been  a  fellow  student  with  Lord  Arlington  at  Christ 
Church  1  and  had  settled  in  Jamaica  in  1665,  wrote  to  the 
former  Secretary  of  State,  Sir  WiUiam  Morice,  that  about  800 
men  were  out  as  privateers,  but  that  they  were  of  Httle  use 
for  the  permanent  defence  of  the  colony  as  they  had  no 
interest  in  land.     'Gold  and  gain,'  he  said,  'is  the  only  god 
they  worship ;  they  can  drive  the  same  trade  with  far  more 
profit  and  advantage  under  French  commissions,  paying 
neither  tenths,  fifteenths  nor  waiting  for  Admiralty  Courts.'  ^ 
The  foUowing  year.  Style  wrote  of  the  horrible  barbarities 
and  atrocities  committed  by  these  privateers  on  the  Span- 
iards.^   The  attempt  was  now  made  to  convert  these  law- 
less desperadoes,  accustomed  to  a  riotous  Hfe  of  brawling 
and  excesses,  into  useful  citizens  of  Jamaica.    This  all  but 
impossible  task  was  imposed  upon  Sir  Thomas  Lynch,  to 
whom,  as  Lieutenant-Governor,  was  entrusted  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  colony.    He  was  instructed  to  publish  the 
treaty  of  1670  with  Spain,  to  revoke  all  commissions  issued 
against  the  Spaniards,  to  use  all  efforts  to  bring  in  the 
privateers  and  to  encourage  them  to  settle  in  Jamaica.* 
A  small  naval  force  was  placed  at  his  disposal,  for  otherwise 
nothing  at  all  could  have  been  accomplished. 
A  number  of  these  privateers  now  abandoned  their  pre- 

^  C.  C.  1 669-1 674,  p.  xxiii.      3  7^  pp  4g_5i, 

'  ^^^-  PP-  3-5.  '  im.  pp.  145-147 ;  C.  O.  138/1,  ff.  88-95. 


.1 1  'I 


64 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


carious  life,  and  habituated  themselves  to  a  more  regular 
mode  of  existence.  Many  engaged  in  the  logwood  trade  to 
Yucatan.  But  some  refused  to  submit  and  continued  to 
seize  Spanish  vessels.^  Others  joined  with  the  French  and 
engaged  in  such  exploits  as  barbarous  raids  in  Cuba.^  In  a 
spirit  somewhat  approaching  disgust  and  despair,  Sir  Thomas 
Lynch  wrote  on  January  13,  1672,^  to  Sir  Joseph  Williamson, 
Arlington's  secretary,  that  "this  cursed  trade  has  been  so 
long  followed,  and  there  is  so  many  of  it,  that  like  Weeds  or 
Hidras  they  spring  up  as  fast  as  we  can  cut  them  down." 
Lynch,  however,  persisted,  and,  thanks  to  the  invaluable 
aid  of  the  frigates  supplied  by  England,  was  in  reality  able 
to  accomplish  a  good  deal.  A  number  of  pirates  were 
brought  to  justice  in  Jamaica,  which  deterred  others  from 
their  devious  paths.*  Towards  the  end  of  1672,  he  was  able 
to  inform  the  Council  for  Plantations  that  he  had  reduced 
all  the  privateers  and  that  there  was  not  one  English  pirate 
in  the  West  Indies,  although  a  few  Englishmen  were  contin- 
uing their  former  career  in  French  vessels.^ 

This  outcome  promised  an  era  of  economic  expansion. 
As  Lynch  wrote,  "privateering  was  the  sickness  of  Jamaica, 
for  that  and  planting  a  country  are  absolutely  inconsistent."  ^ 
Unfortunately,  conditions  were  leading  to  a  recrudescence  of 
this  evil.  Shortly  before  the  treaty  of  1670  with  Spain,  Eng- 
lish traders  had  begun  to  resort  to  Campeachy  and  adja- 
cent places  for  the  purpose  of  cutting  logwood,  which  was 

*  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  263,  264,  298,  299.  2  Ihid.  pp.  318,  322. 
» Ibid.  pp.  315,  316.                            <  Ibid.  pp.  322,  323,  340,  342,  343. 

*  Ibid.  pp.  425-428.  « Ibid.  pp.  339-341. 


JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS 


65 


extensively  used  in  Europe  for  dyeing  textiles.  In  1670, 
Governor  Modyford  wrote  to  Arlington  that  a  dozen  Jamaica 
vessels,  belonging  to  former  privateers,  were  engaged  in 
cutting  this  wood  in  Yucatan  and  elsewhere,  but  only  in 
uninhabited  places,  where  they  did  not  trespass  on  the 
Spaniards.  As  the  trade  was  very  profitable  and  as  in 
his  opinion  two-thirds  of  the  privateers  would  engage  in  it 
on  the  conclusion  of  a  definitive  peace  with  Spain,  he  urged 
that  it  be  authorized  by  the  English  government.^  A  few 
weeks  later,  he  wrote  that  the  number  of  Jamaica  vessels 
engaged  in  the  logwood  trade  had  grown  to  twenty  and  was 
likely  to  increase  daily.^ 

On  July  2,  1671,  shortly  after  his  arrival  in  Jamaica, 
Lieutenant-Governor  Sir  Thomas  Lynch  begged  Lord 
Arlington  to  give  instructions  about  this  trade.^  This 
earnest  request  he  repeated  on  various  occasions  in  subse- 
quent despatches,  but  pending  the  receipt  of  definite  in- 
structions, he  did  not  interfere  with  the  logwood  cutters.* 
In  1671,  there  were  about  forty  Jamaica  ships  engaged  in 
this  trade,  which  then  was  of  especial  importance  to  the 
colony,  as  both  the  cacao  and  sugar  crops  of  that  year  had 
turned  out  failures.^  Lynch  contended  that  the  English 
had  a  right  to  cut  logwood  in  uninhabited  places  in  the  Gulf 
of  Campeachy,  as  they  had  done  so  before  the  Spanish  treaty 
of  1670,  which  recognized  England's  then  existing  posses- 

*  Ibid.  pp.  120-122.  » Ibid.  pp.  238,  239. 

Ibid.  p.  142.  4  /^.  pp.  241,  263-266,  322-324. 

^  Ibid.  pp.  241,  263,  264,  310.  According  to  one  account,  the  actual 
number  of  Jamaica  ships  in  this  trade  was  32  of  11 70  tons,  424  men  and 
74  guns.     C.  O.  138/1,  f.  121 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  306. 

(2) 


w 


i»  'r 


66 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL   SYSTEM 


' 


I 


sions  in  America.^  As,  however,  it  was  highly  improbable 
that  Spain  would  take  this  view  of  the  matter,^  the  EngKsh 
government  proceeded  cautiously.  Early  in  1672,  Lynch 
received  word  from  ArHngton  that  this  question  was  under 
discussion,  and  at  the  same  time  he  was  instructed  not  to 
"choque  with  Spain  for  small  things,"  which  he  took  to 
be  "a  tacit  prohibition."  ^ 

In  the  meanwhile,  Arlington  had  written  to  the  EngHsh 
Ambassador  in  Spain,  Sir  William  Godolphin,  asking  whether 
this  cuttmg  of  logwood  in  uninhabited  places  was  inconsist- 
ent with  the  treaty  of  1670,  and  how  Spain  would  regard 
such  practices.^  In  reply,^  Godolphin  stated  that  this 
wood  came  from  Yucatan,  a  large  province  of  New  Spain 
which  was  sufficiently  peopled.  Spain's  title  to  it,  he  con- 
tinued, was  absolutely  valid,  and  unquestionably  the  de- 
sired permission  to  cut  logwood  would  not  be  conceded,  for, 
on  the  same  grounds,  the  EngHsh  might  claim  a  right  to 
inhabit  there.  While  England  thus  had  no  legal  standing, 
Godolphin  added  that,  in  his  opinion,  if  the  wood  were  cut  in 


»  C.  O.  1/27,  58;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  297-300,  310. 

« On  Dec.  25,  167 1,  Lynch  wrote  to  Arlington  that  the  Spanish  were 
preparing  to  seize  the  logwood  cutters.     C  C.  1669-1674,  p.  310. 

3  Ibid.  pp.  339-341.  The  Jamaica  Council  was,  however,  of  the  opinion 
that,  since  Arlington's  letter  of  November,  1671,  did  not  directly  forbid  this 
trade,  it  ought  not  to  be  prohibited,  especially  as  the  Spaniards  had  never 
complained,  as  the  Enghsh  had  'great  colour  of  right'  to  it  under  the  treaty 
of  1670,  and  as  it  was  of  great  importance  to  the  island  and  the  only  way  to 
divert  the  privateers  from  their  vocation.    Ibid.  p.  343. 

*  Arlington's  Letters  (London,  1701)  II,  pp.  336,  373. 

'^Brit.  Mus.,Stowe  MSS.  256,  flf.  305-307;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  357, 
358. 


JAMAICA  AND   THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS 


67 


f  ( 


remote  places  and  in  a  secret  manner,  the  English  govern- 
ment might  connive  at  it,  though  not  authorizing  it  until 
it  should  be  seen  to  what  degree  Spain  would  show  resent- 
ment. If  the  other  articles  of  the  American  treaty  of  1670 
were  observed  by  the  English,  and  if  this  trade  were  carried 
on  cautiously,  Godolphin  concluded,  Spain  might  overlook 
the  matter.  In  accordance  with  this  advice,  instructions 
were  sent  to  L>Tich  to  permit  logwood  cutting  in  uninhabited 
places,  but  to  use  care  and  prudence  so  as  not  to  offend  the 
Spaniards.^ 

Spain,  however,  did  not  overlook  this  matter.  Towards 
the  end  of  167 1,  a  Dutchman  named  Yellowes,  an  old  Jamaica 
privateer  of  considerable  notoriety,  who  had  entered  the 
service  of  Spain  and  was  employed  by  the  Governor  of 
Campeachy  to  break  up  this  trade,  seized  five  English  ships 
engaged  in  it.^  Subsequently,  more  logwood  vessels  were 
captured  by  this  Yellowes,  but  Governor  Lynch  refused  to 
take  any  notice  thereof,  because,  as  he  wrote,  'he  only  con- 
nives at  the  wood  cutting,  and  without  orders  dare  not 
direct  the  retaking  of  our  ships.'  ^  These  seizures  were  but 
the  preliminary  to  even  greater  activity  on  the  part  of  the 
Spanish.  Not  only  were  vessels  actually  engaged  in  this 
trade  on  the  coast  of  Yucatan  seized,  but  also  others  guilt- 
less of  any  connection  with  it.  Enghsh  vessels  having  log- 
wood on  board  were  captured  on  the  high  seas  by  the  Spanish, 
even  though  this  logwood  had  been  purchased  in  Jamaica  or 
elsewhere.    In  some  instances  also,  ships  were  taken  with- 

1  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  382,  417.  2  75^.  pp,  298,  384,  401. 

» Ibid.  pp.  420,  421. 


' .  II 


>• 


68 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


out  even  this  excuse,  apparently  merely  because  they  were 
of  English  nationaHty.  It  was  said  in  1674  that  the  Span- 
iards had  seized  seventy-five  English  ships  since  the  treaty 
of  1670.^  Essentially  the  same  situation  had  arisen  that 
two  generations  later  brought  on  the  famous  war  of  1739 
between  England  and  Spain.  Although  the  English  had 
carried  on  this  trade  prior  to  1670,  and  with  this  object  had 
established  small  temporary  settlements  in  Yucatan,^  yet 
any  claim  of  right  on  this  score  was  of  questionable  legality 
and  certainly  would  have  been  resisted  by  Spain.  On  the 
other  hand,  logwood  was  not  contraband,  and  the  seizure  on 
the  high  seas  of  vessels  carrying  it  undoubtedly  violated 
EngUsh  rights.  On  this  point  especially,  England  made 
strong,  but  fruitless,  representations  to  Spain.  No  redress 
could,  however,  be  secured.^ 

1  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  48s,  486,  505,  537-S39»  556-559,  602,  608;  Win- 
throp  Papers  II,  pp.  153-155;  P-  C  Cal.  I,  pp.  577,  594,  595,  598-601, 
607 ;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  205,  239,  261,  263. 

*  According  to  Lynch,  the  best  logwood  was  obtainable  in  "morose  and 
swampish"  lands  in  Yucatan,  where  it  was  impossible  to  settle.  The 
English  had  built  huts  there  for  the  convenience  of  the  trade  and  in  1672 
had  cut,  so  Lynch  beheved,  over  2000  tons.  C.  C.  1 669-1 674,  p.  426. 
According  to  a  deposition  sent  by  Lynch,  the  Enghsh  had  begun  this  trade 
just  prior  to  1670,  and  since  then  had  huts  and  100  to  200  people  resident 
there,  but  only  in  places  remote  from  any  Indians  or  Spanish.  Ibid,  p.  427. 
Cf.  Brit.  Mus.,Egerton  MSS.  2395,  ff.  481,  482.  According  to  other  testi- 
mony, 300  English  had  been  Uving  in  Yucatan  since  1666,  but  none  of  them 
within  45  leagues  of  any  Spanish  plantation.    C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  556-559. 

3  On  Dec.  31,  1674,  Secretary  Coventry  wrote  to  Lord  Vaughan  that  the 
Council  had  not  yet  decided  what  to  do  about  the  claim  to  cut  logwood 
at  Campeachy;  that  there  were  many  arguments  pro  and  con,  but 
unquestionably  the  Spaniards  had  no  right  to  seize  Enghsh  vessels  canying 
logwood,  as  it  was  not  contraband.     Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  25,120,  f.  43. 


JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS 


69 


The  matter  was  in  this  unsettled  state  when  Lord  Vaughan 
in  1675  assumed  the  government  of  Jamaica.    What  does 
most  injury,  he  wrote  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  Sir  Joseph 
Williamson,  was  that  their  right  of  cutting  logwood  had  not 
been  determined.     As  a  result,  he  said,  the  trade  could 
neither  be  carried  on  profitably  nor  so  governed  as  to  ex- 
clude strangers,  which  might  easily  be  effected  if  England 
should  assert  its  title  to  this  part  of  Yucatan  and  annex  it  to 
Jamaica.^    The  Spanish  seizures  of  English  vessels  naturally 
led  to  a  revival  of  activity  on  the  part  of  the  privateers;  and, 
as  the  EngUsh  colonial  officials  would  not  empower  them,  the 
Jamaica  buccaneers  carried  on  their  reprisals  imder  the  au- 
thority of  French  commissions.    Under  these  conditions,  the 
development  of  the  island's  agricultural  resources  progressed 
slowly.     Governor  Lord  Vaughan  tried  to  suppress  privateer- 
ing, since  it  was  so  inimical  to  planting,  but  as  he  wrote : 
"These  Indies  are  so  vast  and  rich  and  this  kind  of  rapine  so 
sweet  that  it  is  one  of  the  hardest  things  in  the  world  to 
draw  those  from  it  which  have  used  it  so  long."  ^    All 

See  also  ff.  47,  65.  On  July  23,  1675,  he  wrote  to  Sir  Henry  Morgan  at  Ja- 
maica: "I  hope  the  Spaniards  will  at  last  see  their  own  Interest,  and  then 
they  will  be  wary  of  offending  ours  so  much  and  so  often  as  they  do,  tho  as 
yet  we  cannot  bragg  of  much  besides  words  obtained  from  them ;  But  that 
of  visiting  our  Ships  and  taking  out  any  Goods  not  allowed  Coimterband  by 
the  Treaty,  his  Majesty  will  by  no  means  endure  and  hath  accordingly 
declared  as  much  to  the  Spanish  Ambassador  here."  Ihid.  f.  50.  See  also 
Haring,  op.  cit.  pp.  207-211. 

^  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  282. 

*  Ihid.  pp.  368,  369.  At  the  same  time.  Governor  Atkins  of  Barbados 
wrote  to  Secretary  Williamson  that  Jamaica's  chiefest  dependence  was 
'upon  a  difference  with  Spain  that  they  may  make  up  by  rapine  what  they 
cannot  obtain  by  industry.'    Ihid.  p.  368. 


7© 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


\l 


|!l 


efforts  of  the  English  colonial  authorities  to  suppress  the 
privateers  were  in  vain,  and  at  the  same  time  the  frequent 
seizures  ^  made  by  Spain  did  not  break  up  the  logwood  trade, 
in  which  the  Jamaica  vessels  were  being  joined  by  an  increas- 
ingly large  number  from  New  England.^  Men  Hke  William 
Dampier,  then  at  the  outset  of  his  career,  readily  alternated 
between  log-cutting  and  buccaneering.  The  urgency  of  some 
settlement  of  the  disputed  right  to  cut  this  wood  was  be- 
coming daily  more  apparent.  In  1678,  Lord  Carlisle,  who 
had  succeeded  Lord  Vaughan  as  Governor  of  Jamaica,  wrote 
earnestly  to  Secretary  Coventry  about  the  necessity  of 
adjusting  this  matter.^  The  Lords  of  Trade,  however, 
reported  that  Spain  would  not  at  present  admit  of  any 
accommodation,  and  accordingly  in  1679  instructions  were 
sent  to  CarHsle  to  "discourage  as  much  as  in  him  lyeth 
all  Persons  under  his  Government  from  cutting  any  Log- 
wood at  Campeche,  or  any  other  part  of  the  King  of 
Spains  Dominions,  And  ...  to  induce  the  Privateers 
to  apply  themselves  to  Planting  upon  the  said  Island  of 
Jamaica."  * 
On  the  receipt  of  further  requests  from  Carlisle  that  this 

1  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  701,  704-706,  716-718;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  292. 

2  In  1673,  Lynch  wrote  that  he  could  not  see  how  the  logwood  trade  could 
be  long  continued  as  the  price  in  London  was  so  low,  the  freights  so  high, 
and  the  risk  so  great.  In  this,  however,  he  was  mistaken.  C.  C.  1669- 
1674,  pp.  485,  486.  In  1675,  Edward  Cranfield  reported  that  in  about  two 
and  a  half  months,  seventeen  New  England  vessels  had  touched  at  Port 
Royal,  Jamaica,  bound  to  Campeachy  for  logwood.  C.  C.  1675-1676, 
pp.  314,  315- 

'  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  280,  281. 

*  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  814;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  343,  346. 


JAMAICA  AND   THE   OUTLYING  ISLANDS  71 

difficulty  with  Spain  be  adjusted/  the  English  government 
decided  that,  as  Campeachy  was  within  the  Spanish  do- 
minions, no  settlement  could  be  sanctioned  there  without 
violating  the  treaty  with  Spain,  and  that  Carlisle  should 
govern  himself  by  the  instructions  issued  to  him  in  1679.2 
Despite  these  orders,  the  logwood  trade  stiU  continued 
and  with  it  the  mutual  hostilities  between  the  two  nations. 
In  addition,  the  Spaniards  now  seized  English  vessels  in  the 
Caribbean,  carrying  either  cacao  or  logwood,  on  the  unten- 
able theory  that  both  were  typicaUy  Spanish  products  that 
must  have  been  obtained  by  means  of  contraband  trade 
with  their  colonies.3     In  1680,  the  Jamaica  Council  wrote 
to  the  Lords  of  Trade '  that  nothing  could  further  their 
trade  more  than  a  firm  and  uninterrupted  preservation  of 
the  peace  with  Spain,  but  that,  on  account  of  the  lack  of  an 
adequate  naval  force,  the  Governor  of  Jamaica  was  unable 
to  reduce  the  privateers.    They  maintained  that,  if  such  a 
peace  could  be  secured,  a  large  trade  in  EngHsh  manufactures 
could  be  carried  on  with  the  Spanish  colonies  through  the 
connivance  of  their  governors.^    The  naval  force  on  the 

*  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  319,  320. 
^    » Ibid.  pp.  364,  365 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  83s,  836.    In  1680,  CarUsle  was  also 
instructed  to  get  the  Jamaica  legislature  to  pass  a  law  for  the  suppression  of 
privateers. 

'  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  406,  428,  429.  On  receipt  of  this  information,  the 
Lords  of  Trade  recommended  that  speedy  satisfaction  and  redress  be  de- 
manded of  Spain,  that  the  cacao  and  logwood  seized  be  restored,  and  that 
in  future  EngUsh  ships  be  not  molested  for  such  reasons.  Ibid  p  471  • 
P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  880,  881.  ' 

*  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  531,  532. 

'  On  account  of  the  heavy  taxes  imposed  in  Spain  on  English  goods 
exported  thence  to  the  Spanish  colonies,  the  merchants  in  the  English  col- 


W 


n 


i 


m 


72 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Jamaica  station,  one  or  two  frigates,  was  insufficient,  they 
added,  to  suppress  these  "ravenous  vermin."  As  they  were 
disowned  by  the  English  authorities,  these  buccaneers 
acted  imder  French  commissions.  Disregarding  these  facts, 
Spain  resented  their  EngHsh  nationaHty  and  laid  their 
"detestable  depredations"  at  England's  door,  treating  with 
horrible  cruelty  such  English  as  fell  into  their  clutches. 
Thus  was  kept  alive  the  bitter  animosity  between  the  two 
nations  in  the  West  Indies.^ 

In  1 68 1,  Sir  Thomas  Lynch,  who  ten  years  before  had  been 
remarkably  successful  in  curbing  the  privateers,  was  again 
placed  in  charge  of  Jamaica.^  The  old  race  of  buccaneers 
had  virtually  disappeared.  Despite  their  lawlessness,  Mor- 
gan and  his  fellows  had  acted  under  regular  commissions,  and 
hence  their  deeds  were  those  of  a  lawful,  though  barbarous, 
guerilla  warfare.  In  the  eighties,  the  privateers  degenerated 
into  mere  pirates,  plundering  indiscriminately  the  commerce 
of  all  nations.  But  many  of  the  old  buccaneers,  like  Mor- 
gan himself,  being  unwilling  to  place  themselves  totally 
beyond  the  pale  of  the  law,  had  abandoned  their  roving  life 
of   adventure.     Rarely  did  they  settle  down  as  planters, 

onies  were  able  to  undersell  goods  imported  through  the  legitimate  chamiel. 
A  small  trade  of  such  nature  was  at  this  time  carried  on  from  Jamaica.  See 
also  ibid.  p.  630. 

^  In  1 68 1,  Sir  Henry  Morgan,  the  Deputy-Governor  of  Jamaica,  reported 
that  the  Spaniards  continued  to  take  all  English  ships  that  they  could  master 
at  sea  or  circumvent  in  the  harbors,  refusing  all  reparation.  C.  C.  1681- 
1685,  pp.  5,  6.  See  also  ibid.  pp.  7,  8.  At  this  time,  Morgan  was  in  charge  of 
afifairs  and  apparently  was  doing  his  utmost  to  suppress  his  former  asso- 
ciates, the  buccaneers.    Ibid.  pp.  7,  8,  21,  22,  82,  87. 

2  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  87,  113,  115. 


JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS  73 

Since  they  had  become  unfitted  for  so  routine  an  existence. 
Numbers  had  engaged  in  the  logwood  trade,  but  in  1682 
Ly;ich  forbade  the  cutting  of  logwood  in  Campeachy,  and 
consequently  for  the  time  being  this  field  was  no  longer 
open  to  them.^     At  this  time  nearly  all  the  old  privateers, 
who  had  submitted  to  the  government's  orders  caUing  them 
m,  were  engaged  in  a  clandestine  trade  from  Jamaica  to  the 
Spamsh  colonies.    Twenty  Jamaica  sloops  were  said  to  be 
seUmg  negroes  and   European  goods  to  Spanish  America 
Lynch  wrote  to  England  that  aU  the  privateers  would  submit 
if  he  had  permission  to  connive  at  this  contraband  trade' 
But,  evidently  from  fear  of  offending  Spain,  the  Lords  of 
Trade  did  not  think  fit  that  the  desired  orders  should  be 
sent.2    To  some  extent  this  diminished  this  outlet  for  the  old 
buccaneers'  energies.    In  addition,  some  Englishmen  became 
outright  pirates,  and  with  their  Dutch,  Spanish,  and  French 
brethren,  harassed  peaceful  traders.    EspeciaUy  notorious 
at  this  time  was  a  Frenchman,  John  Hamlin,  in  the  ship 
La  Trompeuse,  whose  depredations  were  put  an  end   to 
m  1683.^    Early  in  that  year,  Lynch  wrote  to  Blathwayt ' 
that  Jamaica's  losses  through  these  pirates  were  intolerable 
and  feU  heavily  'on  a  young  Colony  with  a  young  trade ' 
AU  the  efforts  of  the  energetic  Governor  to  suppress  them 
were  largely  frustrated    since   not    only  did  the  foreign 
colomes,  especiaUy  the  French  one  in  Hispaniola,  give  these 
pirates  a  willing  refuge,  but  in  addition  the  English  conti- 
nental colonies,  prominently  South  CaroUna,  welcomed  them 

^^CC.i68i-i68s,p.284.  ^/H^.p.375. 

Ibtd.  pp.  456-459,  475-477,  489-494,  519-521.         ^  Ibid.  pp.  391-397. 


« 


» .  THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 

and  asked  no  indiscreet  questions  about  the  source  of  their 
cargoes.!    Although  Jamaica  had  been  the  headquarters  of 
the  English  buccaneers,  the  colony  had  no  sympathy  with 
these  pirates,  who  seized  its  trading  and  fishing  vessels  and 
retarded  its  development.''    The  colonial  Assembly  passed 
a  stringent  law  against  them,  which  was  so  satisfactory  that 
the  EngUsh  government  in   1684  ordered  all  the   other 
colonies  to  use  this  as  a  model  and  to  enact  like  measures.' 
Despite  Lynch's  orders  to  the  contrary  and  the  insistent 
opposition  of  Spain,  the  logwood  trade  was  still  continued, 
over  twenty  vessels  bemg  engaged  in  it  in  1687.*    A  large 
proportion  of  this  logwood  was  shipped  directly  from  Jamaica 
and  New  England  to  continental  European  ports,  such  as 
Hamburg  and  Amsterdam.'    Logwood  was  placed  among 

'  In  1684,  Lynch  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade :  'I  have  formerly  advised 
you  that  our  laws  against  privateers  neither  discourage  nor  lessen  them  while 
they  have  such  retreaU  as  Carolina,  New  England,  and  other  Colomes. 
They  have  permitted  Jacob  HaU  (of  the  only  English  ship  that  was  at  Vera 
Cruz)  to  come  to  CaroUna,  where  he  is  free,  as  aU  such  are;  and  therefore 
they  caU  it  Puerto  Franco.  The  colonists  are  now  fuU  of  pirates' money, 
and  from  Boston  I  hear  that  the  privateers  have  brought  in  80,000  L'  C.  C. 
1681-1685,  p.  598.  See  also  S.  C.  Hughson,  The  Carolina  Pirates  and 
Colonial  Commerce,  1670-1740,  pp.  18-21. 

«  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  657,  687,  721,  755,  76s,  766;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp. 

357.  493.  494,  540,  541- 

»  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  733 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  216,  217,  219;  C.  C.  1681- 
168s,  p.  82 ;  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  pp.  347,  348 ;  Conn.  Col.  Rec.  Ill,  pp. 

336,  337. 

<  C.  O.  1/60,  28 ;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  361-  ' 

s  In  1672,  Lynch  reported  that  he  had  heard  there  were  at  Boston  600 

tons  of  logwood  which,  'with  other  American  goods,  it  is  reported  they  send 

to  foreign  markets.'    C.  C.  1669-1674,  P-  4^6.    Ten  years  later.  Lynch 

stated  that  most  of  this  logwood  was  carried  to  Hamburg,  Holland,  New 


JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS  75 

the  enumerated  commodities  by  the  Navigation  Act  of 
1660;  and  the  question  now  arose,  whether  or  no  the  prod- 
ucts of  ^e  EngUsh  settlements  in  Yucatan  were  included 
withm  tL.s  provision.    In  x686,  one  of  these  traders  to  the 
Bay  of  Honduras,  anchored  at  the  mouth  of  Port  Royal 
Jamaica,  preliminary  to  sailing  for  some  foreign  port  with 
his  logwood.    As  no  bond  had  been  given  to  carry  this 
commodity  to  England  or  its  colonies,   the  Lieutenant- 
Governor,  Hender  Molesworth,  ordered  the  seizure  of  the 
vessel.    The  owners,  however,  protested  that  they  were 
not  within  the  compass  of  the  enumeration  clauses  of  the 
Navigation  Act,  since  Honduras  was  not  an  EngUsh  colony. 
In  tbs  claim  they  were  undoubtedly  correct,  as  England 
neither  exercised  nor  claimed  sovereignty  over  the  logwood 
settlements,  and  as  the  Navigation  Act  enumerated  only 
Enghsh  colonial  products.    To  this,  however,  Molesworth 
rephed  that  then  they  were  robbers  and  might  be  seized 
as  such,  for  unless  they  considered  this  region  an  EngUsh 
colony,  they  had  no  right  to  cut  logwood  there.      "You 
had  better,"  he  said,  "own  it  to  bee  a  Plantation  belong- 
mg  to  his  Ma'^  &  soe  within  the  Act,  than  bring  yo' 
Selves  vnder  worse  circumstances."    On  this  threat,  the 
owners  submitted,  and  immediately  thereafter  this  vessel 
was  seized^as  unfree  (it  had  a  certificate  of  freedom  within 
the  tropics),  but  on  trial  it  was  released.' 
This  case  naturaUy  came  before  the  EngUsh  government. 

^^^?^^::^Z-  -  -  -  —  and  trade  of 
'  C.  0. 1/60,  28;  C.  C.  168S-1688,  p.  361. 


i  '1 


I 


;lil 


It 


76 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


The  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  reported  in  1687  that 
the  colonial  governors  should  be  ordered  strictly  to  enforce 
the  Acts  of  Trade,  "and  Particularly  to  take  especial  Care 
to  the  Utmost  of  their  Power,  that  no  Ship  be  Suffered  to 
pass  with  any  Logwood  coming  from  the  Bay  on  any  Pre- 
tence whatsoever,  without  being  duly  qualified  and  giving 
Bond  to  bring  the  Same  to  England,  Wales  or  Berwick  or 
to  Some  of  His  Ma^  Plantations  as  is  provided  by  Law."  ^ 
Obviously,  such  an  order  would  merely  result  in  the  direct 
shipment  of  the  logwood  from  Yucatan  to  continental 
Europe,  and  it  might  even  destroy  the  English  logwood 
trade,  as  most  of  the  ships  engaged  in  it  were  not  free 
under  the  Navigation  Act.^  The  English  government 
desired  neither  of  these  eventualities,  and  in  its  dilemma 
appealed  to  the  law  ofl&cers.  The  Attorney-General,  Sir 
Thomas  Powys,  did  not  enter  into  the  legal  question, 
whether  or  no  such  logwood  came  within  the  scope  of 
the  enumeration  clauses,  but  stated  that,  if  such  vessels 
had  traded  within  the  Spanish  dominions  in  violation  of 
the  treaty  of  1670,  they  might  be  pimished  for  so  doing.' 
The  SoUcitor-General,  Sir  William  Williams,  agreed  with 
this  opinion  and  stated  that,  if  vessels  had  traded  contrary 
to  a  treaty,  "the  King  may  by  his  royal  Authority  seize 
the  Offending  Shipps  in  order  to  their  condemnation  or 
punishment."  *    As  the  seizure  of  ships  on   this  ground 

1  C.  0. 138/s,  ff-  326-328 ;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  303. 

2  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  484. 

3  C.  O.  1/62,  22 ;  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  30,218,  ff.  135-137. 
*  C.  O.  1/62,  23;  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  30,218,  ff.  137,  138. 


JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS  77 

would  have  been  equivalent  to  a  renunciation  of  whatever 
rights  England  might  have  had  in  Yucatan  and  would  have 
gravely  prejudiced  her  case  against  Spain;  and  as  England 
was  as  yet  not  ready  to  assert  her  sovereignty  over  this 
region,  the  matter  was  with  characteristicaUy  English 
common  sense  not  pushed  to  any  logical  conclusion,  but  for 
the  time  being  was  left  in  abeyance.^ 

1  The  indeterminate  status  of  these  logwood  settlements  brought  up  this 
question  on  several  subsequent  occasions.    In  1699,  the  EngKsh  consul  at 
Vemce  wrote  to  the  English  government  that  an  EngUsh  vessel  had  arrived 
there  directly  from  Honduras  with  thirty  tons  of  logwood.     The  Board  of 
Trade,  to  whom  the  matter  had  been  referred,  asked  the  law  officers  whether 
smce  Honduras  was  "no  part  of  his  Maj*«  plantacons,"  there  was  any  law 
against  a  ship  engaging  in  this  trade.    The  Attorney  and  SoUcitor  General 
reported  that,  as  Honduras  was  not  an  EngUsh  colony,  there  was  no  law 
against  such  logwood  being  carried  directly  to  Venice,  "unless  the  Shipdoth 
belong  unto  some  of  his  Maj^  plantations."    The  statute  referred  to  was 
22  &  23  Ch.  n,  c.  26,  §  vii,  which  provided  that,  in  case  any  vessel  belonging 
to  the  colonies  should  have  unloaded  any  of  the  enumerated  commodities  in 
any  place  in  Europe  other  than  England,  "such  Shipp  or  VesseU  shaU  be 
forfeited.       In  their  report  to  the  Lords  Justices,  after  pointing  out  that 
Honduras  was  not  an  EngUsh  colony  and  that  logwood  might  be  cut  there  by 
any  nation,  the  Board  of  Trade  said :  "It  seems  some  sort  of  hardship  that 
Enghshmen  should  not  have  the  same  Uberty  as  others  to  reap  any  Advan- 
tage that  may  be  made  by  y^  Trade."    They,  however,  added  that  the  Act 
of  1671  laid  a  greater  restraint  on  colonial  than  on  EngUsh  ships  and  was 
designed  to  secure  the  enforcement  of  the  enumeration  clauses,  and,  as  it 
was    highly  Necessary  that  the  utmost  Care  &  WatchfuUness  be  constantly 
imployed  for  preventing  of  that  pernicious  Practice"  (i.e.  the  evasion  of  the 
enumeration  clauses),  they  suggested  that  this  vessel  be  prosecuted  whenever 
It  should  arrive  in  England.     Orders  to  this  effect  were  accordingly  issued  to 

^''TftTV'  '''"  ^''''"'-     ""■  ""•  '''^''^  ^'  ^°^'  ^°^'  308,  344, 
^45 ,    r.  f^.  cal.  11,  p.  345.     Two  years  later,  a  similar  case  came  up  in 

connection  with  an  English  ship  that  had  brought  logwood  to  Leghorn 

Ihe  Board  of  Trade  repeated  its  former  report,  and  the  Commissioners  of 

ine  Customs  were  again  instructed  to  prosecute  the  vessel  on  arrival  in  Eng- 


, 


I 


'  t 


1 


t 


t 


78 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Thus,  in  spite  of  the  conclusion  of  peace  with  Spain  in 
1670,  hostilities  between  the  two  nations  were  of  almost 
daily  occurrence  in  the  West  Indies.  Instead  of  settling 
down  as  planters,  many  Jamaicans  found  it  more  lucrative 
to  prey  upon  Spanish  commerce.  Others  engaged  in  the 
logwood  trade  to  Yucatan,  or  clandestinely  sold  their 
European  wares  to  the  Spanish  colonies  in  the  Caribbean 
and  on  the  Main.    These  factors  hampered  the  agricultural 

land.    The  Customs,  however,  reported  to  the  Treasury  that  they  had  read 
the  clause  m  the  Act  of  1671,  under  which  the  Board  of  Trade  claimed  that 
this  vessel  was  forfeited,  and  that  it  seemed  doubtful  to  them  whether  colo- 
nial ships  were  restrained  by  it  from  loading  logwood  m  the  Bay  of  Cam- 
peachy,  "supposing  that  to  be  a  foreign  Plantation,"  and  then  to  carry  it  to 
a  foreign  country,  "more  than  Other  English  Shipping,"  since  the  former  part 
of  the  clause,  as  well  as  the  entire  statute  and  also  the  other  Acts  of  Trade, 
referred  only  to  English  colonial  products  and  not  to  those  of  foreign  colonies. 
Therefore,  as  the  case  seemed  doubtful,  before  ordering  the  prosecution  of 
the  vessel,  they  requested  the  opinion  of  the  King's  Counsel.    Sir  Edward 
Northey,  the  Attorney-General,  reported  that  he  was  "  Doubtfull  whether  the 
Ship  may  not  be  forfeited  by  the  Statute"  of  1671,  and  advised  that,  if  the 
vessel  belonged  to  the  colonies,  it  be  prosecuted  on  its  return  to  England,  so 
that  the  matter  might  be  judicially  determined  in  the  Court  of  Exchequer. 
Brit.  Mus.,  Hargrave  MSS.  231,  ff.  10-12;  C.  O.  389/17,  ff-  231-235. 
Somewhat  over  ten  years  later,  the  question  arose  again  m  a  somewhat 
different  shape.    An  EngHsh  ship  arrived  in  New  England  from  the  Bay  of 
Campeachy  with  logwood,  and  being  leaky,  with  the  permission  of  the 
Boston  customs  officials,  transferred  this  logwood  to  another  vessel,  which 
then  cleared  for  the  Mediterranean.    Thereupon,  the  Surveyor  General  of 
the  Customs,  Birchfeild,  seized  this  vessel,  on  the  ground  that  the  Act  of  1660 
enumerated  logwood  and  that  the  duties  imposed  by  the  Act  of  1673  on 
logwood  shipped  from  one  EngUsh  colony  to  another  had  not  been  paid. 
In  1 7 14,  the  Attorney-General,  Sir  Edward  Northey,  gave  his  unqualified 
opinion 'that  the  two  statutes  in  question  referred  only  to  EngUsh  colonial 
produce,  and  that,  as  this  was  foreign  logwood,  the  ship  and  cargo  were  not 
liable  to  forfeiture.    Brit.  Mus.,  Hargrave  MSS.  275,  ff-  16,  17;  141,  ff- 
136, 137 ;  Add.  MSS.  8832,  ff.  198-200. 


JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS 


79 


development  of  the  island.^  The  white  population  in  part 
found  these  other  pursuits  more  attractive;  and,  when  the 
Jamaica  authorities  refused  any  longer  to  countenance 
privateering,  numbers  left  the  island  in  order  to  secure 
French  commissions.  At  the  same  time,  on  account  of  these 
incessant  hostihties  and  the  depredations  of  the  pirates,  few 
settlers  were  attracted  to  Jamaica.  In  somewhat  under 
eight  full  years,  from  1671  to  1679,  5396  white  immigrants 
arrived,  of  whom  at  least  one-quarter  left  the  island 
again.  On  the  other  hand,  during  this  period  nearly  i2,ocx) 
negroes  were  imported.^  The  slave  population,  which  at 
the  time  of  the  Restoration  was  about  500,  had  risen  to 
approximately  9000  in  1675.^  Thanks  to  this  labor,  the 
development  of  the  island's  resources  made  considerable 
headway,  even  in  the  face  of  the  existing  handicaps. 

Until  167 1,  the  chief  staple  of  Jamaica  was  cacao,  but  in 
that  year  the  trees  became  blighted  beyond  possibility  of 
recovery,  and  the  attempt  to  plant  anew  met  with  meagre 
success.^  Thereafter,  the  chief  products  exported  were 
sugar,  indigo,  and  cotton.  In  1672,  Governor  Lynch  wrote 
to  the  Council  for  Trade  and  Plantations^  that  Jamaica 
was  more  flourishing  than  ever,  and  was  likely  to  produce 
abundance  of  good  sugars,  some  indigo,  but  no  cacao. 
The  following  year,^  he  stated  that,  if  Jamaica  had  easy 

*  C/.  C.  C.  1 669-1 674,  p.  298. 

*  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  344.  8C.  C.  i675-i676,pp.  314,  315. 

*  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  238,  239,  241,  263,  264,  300,  385,  386,  426;  Dalby 
Thomas,  op.  cit.y  in  Harleian  Miscellany  II,  pp.  353,  354. 

^  c.  c.  1669-1674,  pp.  339-341- 

^  C.  0. 1/30, 19;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  476-478. 


r 


8o 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


government,  were  defended  from  enemies,  were  well  sup- 
plied with  negroes  and  servants,  and  had  no  privateering, 
in  six  years  it  might  produce  as  much  sugar  as  Barbados, 
and  that  in  time  their  other  products  —  such  as  indigo, 
hides,  and  wood  —  would  be  worth  even  more  than  their 
sugar.  Such  a  flourishing  condition  was  as  yet  still  far 
distant.  In  1675,^  Jamaica  was  accurately  described  as 
being  still  in  its  infancy.  There  were  then  seventy  large 
sugar-works  in  the  island  and  forty  more  were  building. 
The  groimd,  being  new,  yielded  per  acre  a  larger  quantity, 
and  it  was  even  claimed  a  better  quality,  of  sugar  than 
did  Barbados.^  The  output  of  the  colony  was  continually 
expanding  at  a  promising,  if  not  at  a  phenomenally  rapid, 
rate.  During  this  decade,  the  exports  of  sugar  averaged 
annually  1000  tons,  those  of  indigo  were  about  40  tons,  and 
in  addition  there  were  exported  considerable  quantities  of 
ginger,  fustic,  logwood,  pimento,  cotton,  and  hides.^    This 

*  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  314,  315.  At  this  time,  the  price  of  sugar  in  Ja- 
maica was  1 8s.  to  20s.  a  cwt.,  that  of  pimento  gd.  a  lb.,  that  of  indigo  2s.  6d. 
alb. 

»  The  Governor  of  Barbados,  Sir  Jonathan  Atkins,  did  not  have  so  favor- 
able an  opinion  of  Jamaica.  In  1676,  he  wrote  that  the  land  was  very- 
sterile  and  would  not  last  over  three  years  if  planted  with  sugar-cane. 
C.  C.  167  5-1676,  p.  368.  At  the  same  time,  Lord  Vaughan,  the  colony's 
Governor,  wrote  that  he  had  no  doubt  that  in  a  few  years  Jamaica  would 
prove  a  most  hopeful  and  thriving  colony.  Ibid.  pp.  368,  369.  According 
to  another  account,  Jamaica  was  not  generally  so  fertile  or  proper  for  sugar 
as  was  Barbados.     The  Present  State  of  Jamaica  (London,  1683),  P-  2. 

^  From  June  25, 1671,  to  March  25,  1679,  the  exports  consisted  of:  sugar 
7637I  tons,  cacao  44!  tons,  indigo  305  tons,  ginger  177  tons,  fustic  2357 
tons,  logwood  51 19  tons,  tobacco  43!  tons,  pimento  134}  tons,  hides  38,587, 
cotton  876  bags.     C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  344. 


JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS 


81 


was  a  considerable  improvement  on  the  record  of  the  first 
ten  years  after  the  Restoration,  but  the  advance  in  the 
eighties  was  stiU  more  marked.    During  the  four  years 
from  1680  to  1684,  Jamaica  shipped  to  England  on  an 
average  8000  hogsheads  of  sugar  annuaUy,  besides  compara- 
tively large  quantities  of  cotton,  ginger,  indigo,  logwood, 
fustic,  and  hides.    During  the  foUowing  five  years,  nearly 
12,000  hogsheads  of  sugar  were  annuaUy  exported  to  Eng- 
land.i    The    island  was  at  this  time  on  a  firm  economic 
basis,  and,  although  not  as  yet  so  important  commercially  as 
its  smaller  rival  Barbados,  it  was  in  some  degree  answering 
the  great  expectations  aroused  by  its  conquest  from  Spain.^ 
In  general,  Jamaica's  trade  took  the  same  course  as  that 
of  the  other  West  Indian  islands.^     The  bulk  of  its  exports 

1  FuU  details,  based  on  the  naval  office  lists,  are  available,  but  the  fact 
must  not  be  lost  sight  of,  that  these  accounts  are  not  absolutely  reliable. 
See  Bodleian,  RawKnson  MSS.,  B  250,  ff.  59,  60;  C.  O.  142/13;  C.  O. 
390/6,  ff.  31-34.  Cf.  also  Richard  Blome,  The  Present  State  of  America 
(London,  1687),  pp.  13,  14.  Ten  years  later,  each  Jamaica  hogshead  con- 
tained approximately  7  cwt.  House  of  Lords  MSS.,  1699-1702,  IV, 
p.  444. 

2  Cf.  Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  3861,  f.  67^.  From  Dec.  15,  1697,  to 
Sept.  29,  1700,  Jamaica  exported  to  England  32,438  hogsheads  and 
980  barrels  of  sugar.  Barbados  shipped  more  to  England  in  two  years. 
From  March  25,  1698,  to  March  25,  1700,  this  colony's  exports  to  England 
amounted  to  33,788  hogsheads,  7940  barrels,  and  2646  tierces  of  sugar. 
Moreover,  the  Jamaica  hogsheads  contained  only  about  7  cwt.,  as  opposed 
to  10  cwt.  in  those  of  Barbados.  The  imports  from  Jamaica  into  England 
in  the  year  beginning  Sept.  29,  1697,  amounted  to  £189,566,  as  opposed  to 
£308,089  from  Barbados.  The  exports  from  England  were,  however,  more 
nearly  equal;  those  to  Barbados  were  £146,849,  those  to  Jamaica  £120,774. 
House  of  Lords  MSS.,  1699-1702,  IV,  pp.  444-447. 

3  Full  details  are  available  in  the  naval  office  lists  from  1685  to  1705. 

(2) 


I 


82 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


went  to  England/  whence  were  obtained  in  return  all  sorts 
of  manufactures,  especially  wearing  apparel  and  utensils, 
as  well  as  some  provisions  and  liquors  —  beer,  cider,  French 
wines,  and  brandy.    Apart  from  the  native  rum,  the  chief 
beverage  of  the  richer  planters  in  Jamaica,  as  in  the  other 
colonies,  was,  however,  wine  from  the  Madeiras.^    From 
Ireland   were   imported   servants  and  food-stuffs  —  pork, 
butter,  flour,  biscuit,  bacon,  and  grain.    The  continental 
colpnies  supplied  Jamaica  with  lumber,  horses,  fish,  and  pro- 
visions in  general.    But,  as  in  the  main  the  New  England 
traders  refused  merchandise  and  demanded  money  in  pay- 
ment, this  trade  was   not   favored   by  Jamaica.^    From 
Yucatan  and  the  other  Spanish  colonies  were  secured  log- 
wood, hides,  and  cacao,  which  were  again  reexported.^    In 
addition,  Jamaica  had  a  miscellaneous  trade  with  Barbados 
and  the  other  English  islands,  as  well  as  with  the  French  and 
Dutch  colonies.    The  European  trade  was  carried  on  in 
Enghsh  ships,  that  from  the  continental  colonies  mainly  in 
New  England  vessels  of  far  less  burden,  while  Jamaica's 
small  fleet  of  sloops  was  engaged  in  catching  turtles  and 

See  C.  0. 142  / 13.    Cf.  also  Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  3984,  ff-  200-209 ;  C.  C. 

1675-1676,  pp.  314,  315,  342-344- 

1  During  the  year  from  March  25,  1683,  to  March  25,  1684,  there  were 
exported  to  England  from  Jamaica  m  61  ships  9803  hogsheads  of  sugar,  1367 
bags  of  cotton  and  200  barrels  of  indigo.  During  the  same  period,  24  vessels 
took  302  hogsheads  and  5  barrels  of  sugar,  96  bags  of  cotton,  17I  tons  and  36 
barrels  of  molasses,  and  3I  tons  of  rum  to  the  other  EngUsh  colonies.    C.  O. 

390/6,5.31-34. 

2  The  Present  State  of  Jamaica  (London,  1683),  p.  22. 

8  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  342-344;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  319,  320. 
*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  284. 


JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS 


83 


fish,  in  conveying  the  logwood  cutters  to  Yucatan,  and  in 
evading  the  strict  laws  forbidding  foreigners  to  trade  with 
Spanish  America.^ 

In  marked  contradistinction  to  Barbados,  Jamaica  did 
not  register  any  complaints  against  the  Acts  of  Trade  and 
Navigation.  When  these  laws  were  enacted,  the  economic 
life  of  the  colony  had  barely  begun,  and  hence  no  vested 
interests  were  dislocated  and  no  painful  readjustment  was 
necessary.  The  industries  developed  under  the  restrictive 
system;  and,  as  no  knowledge  was  had  of  unfettered  condi- 
tions, no  grievance  was  felt.  While  Governors  of  Barbados, 
like  the  Willoughbys  and  Atkins,  were  fearlessly  outspoken 
in  their  condemnation  of  the  commercial  system,  equally 
public-spirited  and  well-informed  officials  in  Jamaica,  such 
as  Modyford  and  Lynch,  virtually  ignored  this  phase  of  the 
colonial  problem.^ 

*  In  1676,  it  was  said  that  Jamaica  owned  about  60  or  70  vessels,  which 
were  employed  in  fetching  logwood  and  salt,  in  Hurtling,'  etc.  Some  sloops 
traded  with  the  French  for  hides,  meat,  and  tobacco,  and  some  with  the 
Spaniards  and  Dutch.  At  this  time,  the  Deputy- Governor,  Sir  Henry 
Morgan,  forbade  trade  with  the  French  and  Spaniards.  C.  C.  1675-1676, 
pp.  342-345-  In  1679,  Lord  Carlisle  urged  that  the  French  in  Hispaniola 
be  allowed  to  bring  cacao  and  money  to  Jamaica  for  English  manufactures. 
In  this  connection  the  Lords  of  Trade  recommended  that  he  be  reminded  that 
the  Act  of  Navigation,  which  he  had  sworn  to  obey,  prohibited  such  trade, 
and  added  that  a  "Publick  Allowance  of  a  Trade  either  with  the  Span- 
iards or  French,  would  afford  matter  of  Offence  to  those  Kings  who  are  so 
strict  in  prohibiting  any  Trafick  with  Strangers."  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  319, 
320,  364,  365 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  83s,  836.  See  also  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  344. 
In  1682,  Lynch  said  that  Jamaica  had  about  20  sloops  of  from  15  to  45  tons. 
C.  C.  1681-1685,  P-  284. 

2  On  this  point.  Lynch  merely  said  that  the  only  obstruction  to  trade  was 
the  want  of  servants  and  slaves,  and  that  had  all  nations  permission  to  bring 


84 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Although  Jamaica  did  not  register  any  complaints  against 
the  Acts  of  Trade,  their  effect  was  apparently  only  to  a  very 
slight  extent  mitigated  by  illegal  practices.  Making  aU  due 
allowances  for  the  impossibility  of  determining  such  a  ques- 
tion precisely,  there  were  seemingly  but  few  evasions  of  the 
law  in  Jamaica.  Some  of  the  ships  owned  in  the  colony  were 
not  fully  quaUfied  under  the  strict  terms  of  the  Navigation 
Act,  but  this  violation  of  the  law  was  largely  a  technical 
one.^  Occasionally  also,  a  vessel  from  one  of  the  neighboring 
foreign  colonies,  especially  from  French  Hispaniola,  came  to 
Jamaica.^  Apart  from  these  and  the  Spanish  ships  that  were 
authorized  to  fetch  slaves  in  Jamaica,  foreign  ships  did  not 
trade  to  the  island.^  Edward  Cranfield,  better  known  from 
his  later  connection  with  New  Hampshire,  reported  posi- 
tively to  this  effect  in  1675.*  Sunilarly,  the  enumeration 
clauses  and  the  Staple  Act  were  carefully  enforced.^    The 

them,  they  would  not  'feel  those  lesser  obstructions  laid  on  them  by  Act  of 
ParUament/  that  is,  12  Ch.  n,  c.  18  and  15  Ch.  n,  c.  7.     C.  C.  1669-1674, 

p.  304- 

1  See  ante,  Vol.  I,  pp.  68,  69. 

2  In  1 67 1,  Lynch  reported  that  every  English  ship  paid  i2d.  a  ton,  every 
foreign  one  25.     C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  304. 

3  Before  the  government  of  Jamaica  had  been  settled,  in  166 1,  the  Crom- 
wellian  Governor,  Doyley,  against  the  advice  of  the  CouncU,  allowed  a  Dutch 
vessel  to  trade,  saying  that  the  only  penalty  was  loss  of  his  office  which 
he  had  virtually  lost  already.  Captain  Whiteing  of  H.M.S.  Diamond  then 
seized  the  vessel,  but  was  dispossessed  by  the  Governor.  This  seizure  led 
to  protracted  disputes.  C.  O.  1/15,  31,  f-  iS;  C.  O.  1/16,  30,  31  j  C.  C. 
1661-1668,  nos.  106,  253,  461,  594,  599,  641,  643,  672. 

*  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  314,  315.  In  1681,  Sir  Henry  Morgan  reported 
that  '  the  bare  ship '  of  an  interloping  slave-trader  was  seized  by  the  Naval 
Officer,  'by  virtue  of  the  Act  of  Navigation/    C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  6. 

5  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  342-344. 


JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS 


85 


bulk  of  the  island's  produce  was  shipped  to  England,  where 
also  were  obtained  nearly  all  the  European  goods  consumed. 
There  was  some  importation  of  French  commodities  from 
Hispaniola,^  but  this  was  apparently  of  slight  importance. 
In  general,  the  authorities  were  careful  about  enforcing  the 
laws.2  'phus,  when  in  1687  the  Spanish  agent  for  the  Assiento 
in  Jamaica  petitioned  the  local  authorities  for  permission  to 
export  some  of  the  island's  produce,  especially  sugar  which 
was  cheaper  in  Jamaica  than  in  Cuba,  Lieutenant-Governor 
Molesworth  refused  his  assent,  as  this  trade  was  illegal.^ 

Situated  to  the  north  of  Cuba  is  a  long  line  of  small  coral 
islands,  collectively  known  as  the  Bahamas.  During  the 
Civil  War  in  England,  Eleuthera,  one  of  the  islands  of  this 
group,  had  been  occupied  by  settlers  from  the  Bermudas.'* 
Somewhat  over  twenty  years  later,  in  1666,  another  of  these 

1  During  the  course  of  the  constitutional  struggle,  Jamaica  passed  a  tem- 
porary revenue  law  containing  among  other  duties  one  on  French  wines. 
The  Lords  of  Trade  wrote  that  they  could  not  understand  the  imposition  of 
this  duty,  as  it  was  'inconsistent  with  existing  Acts  of  Parliament.'  In 
reply,  Lord  Carlisle  stated  that  the  Assembly  had  insisted  on  continuing 
these  duties.     C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  47©,  5i8. 

2  The  accounts  of  Sir  Thomas  Lynch  passed  in  the  Jamaica  Council  in 
1687  showed  that  five  ships  and  some  piratical  goods  were  condemned  in  the 
Admiralty  Court,  and  also  four  ships  in  the  common  law  courts.  The  total 
appraised  value  of  these  seizures  was  very  low,  the  Crown's  one-third 
amounting  to  only  £178.  C.  O.  1/61,  42.  In  1688,  Albemarle  wrote  that 
he  had  seized  two  Spanish  sloops  for  iUegal  trading,  of  which  one  on  trial 
had  been  cleared  by  the  Admiralty  Judge  and  the  other  would  be  tried  in 
open  court.  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  525,  530.  In  1688,  a  Dutch  vessel  was 
seized  and  condemned  in  Jamaica  for  trading  contrary  to  the  Act  of  Naviga- 
tion,  c.  o.  140/4,  ff.  255-257 ;  c.  c.  1685-1688,  p.  621. 

3  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  357. 

*  Beer,  Origins,  p.  380;  Lucas,  West  Indies,  pp.  15,  16. 


I 


i 


V 


<' 


86 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


islands,  New  Providence,  was  peopled  from  the  same  source. 
In  1668,  these  settlers,  then  numbering  250,  appUed  to  Gov- 
ernor Modyford  of  Jamaica,  who  issued  a  commission  and 
instructions  to  their  elected  Governor,  John  Wentworth, 
until  the  King's  pleasure  should  be  known.^  In  the  mean- 
while, there  developed  a  faction  opposed  to  Governor 
Wentworth;  and  at  its  head  were  his  brother  Hugh  and 
John  Dorrell.  In  1670,^  these  two  men  wrote  to  Lord 
Ashley,  one  of  the  Carolina  proprietors,  that,  having  heard 
of  his  desire  to  promote  new  plantations,  they  desired  to 
call  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  people  were  emigrating 
from  the  Bermudas,  then  already  over-populated,  and  had 
settled  New  Providence,  which  produced  'good  cotton  and 
gallant  tobacco. '  They  further  suggested  that  Ashley  should 
obtain  a  grant  of  the  Bahamas,  so  that  they  might  be  gov- 
erned according  to  His  Majesty's  laws.'  Accordingly,  the 
proprietors  of  Carolina  secured  a  patent  for  the  Bahamas, 
and  Ashley  wrote  to  Hugh  Wentworth  and  John  Dorrell, 
thanking  them  for  their  willingness  to  put  themselves  and 
the  rest  of  the  inhabitants  of  New  Providence  into  his 
hands.     Not  being  fully  informed  as  to  the  situation,  and 

^  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  403.    Cf.  pp.  432, 444.  2  75^  p  ^5 

'  On  Sept.  9,  1670,  that  is,  after  steps  had  been  taken  to  secure  the 
patent,  Governor  Sayle  and  the  Council  wrote  from  CaroHna  to  the  Pro- 
prietors that  the  Bahamas  had  been  recently  settled,  but  that  no  patent 
covering  them  had  as  yet  been  issued.  They  "may  be  worthy  yo""  Hon""^ 
care  to  take  notice  of,"  the  letter  continued,  "for  from  thence  wee  can  be 
supplyed  with  salt  &  shipps  goeing  home  without  freight  (if  any  such  should 
be)  may  take  in  a  loading  of  BrazeUettoe  wood."  So.  Ca.  Hist.  Soc.  Collec- 
tions V,  p.  180;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  86  ;  A.  S.  Salley,  Narratives  of  Early 
Carolina,  p.  1 24. 


JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS 


87 


confusing  Hugh  Wentworth  with  his  brother,  the  popularly 
elected  Governor,  the  proprietors  appointed  the  former 
chief  magistrate.^  Before  this  error  could  lead  to  serious 
consequences,  Hugh  died,  and  in  the  fall  of  1671  John 
Wentworth  succeeded  to  his  post.^ 

As  in  Carolina,  so  in  the  Bahamas,  the  chief  economic 
interest  of  the  proprietors  was  in  the  production  of  such 
commodities  as  were  not  indigenous  to  England  and  which 
had  to  be  imported  from  foreign  nations.  Special  stress 
was  laid  on  the  production  of  cacao,  which  up  to  that  time  had 
proven  a  very  remunerative  staple  in  Jamaica;  and  great 
interest  was  taken  in  the  possibility  of  securing  in  New 
Providence  a  dyeing-wood,  known  as  braziletto  from  its 
usual  place  of  origin.^  In  order  to  secure  some  returns  for 
the  supplies  that  they  were  sending  to  the  colony,  the  pro- 
prietors reserved  certain  commodities,  such  as  braziletto, 
cedar,  and  ambergris  for  themselves,  and  prohibited  any  inva- 
sion of  their  royalties."*  This  attempt  to  introduce  the  system 
of  the  Bermuda  Company  led  to  considerable  opposition,  and, 
in  addition,  the  colony  was  already  dissatisfied  on  other 
counts.  Although  elaborate  plans  were  drawn  up  for  the 
settlement  of  the  islands,  they  could  not  be  carried  into 
efifect,  partly  for  lack  of  funds,  partly  because  the  proprietors 
had  their  hands  already  more  than  full  with  Carolina.^    In 

*  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  119, 122, 123,  206,  444;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  147. 
^  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  280,  296,  297,  310. 

^  Ibid.  pp.  123,433. 

*  Shaftesbury  Papers,  Bundle  48,  no.  55;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  574,  575; 
C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  232,  233,  418. 

^  It  was  figured  that  the  cost  of  transporting  and  settling  300  families  of 


£.. 


ii 


ii 


88 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


1672,  Governor  Wentworth  complained  to  Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor Lynch  that  the  proprietors  neglected  them,  and  prayed 
that  they  might  be  joined  to  Jamaica, '  the  rock  whence  their 
first  Government  and  order  was  hewn.'  ^  In  reply,  Lynch 
sent  him  a  commission,  expressing  the  hope  that  he  was  in- 
vading nobody's  rights  in  so  doing.^  The  proprietors,  how- 
ever, succeeded  in  maintaining  their  charter  rights,  but  were 
able  to  exercise  but  scant  authority  in  the  colony.  In  1687, 
New  Providence  elected  twelve  persons  to  carry  on  the 
government,  of  whom  one,  Thomas  Bridges,  was  to  act  as 
Moderator.'  A  year  later,  this  elected  ofi&cial  was  appointed 
Governor  by  the  proprietors.*  Nor  was  any  material  eco- 
nomic advantage  derived  from  the  colony,  as  but  slight 
progress  was  made.^  Fundamentally,  this  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  New  Providence  had  degenerated  into  a  resort 
for  pirates. 

1000  persons  and  8000  slaves  and  of  fortifying  the  islands  would  amount 
to  over  £600,000,  an  impossible  sum  for  those  days.    C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  123. 

*  Ibid.  pp.  402,  403. 

2  C.  0. 1/29,  26 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  406, 407.  Wentworth  had  asked  for 
arms  to  defend  the  colony  in  the  impending  war,  and  in  reply  Lynch  stated 
that,  in  passing  on  the  needs  of  the  Bahamas,  the  Council  for  Foreign  Planta- 
tions would  only  consider  whether  you  increase  trade  and  "soe  consequently 
the  King's  Customes  and  the  English  Navigation,  or  whether  yo^  strengthen 
the  Colonyes  abroad,  or  lye  Convenient  for  Comerce  or  Receipt  of  our  Shipps 
in  their  Voyages,  or  can  produce  something  extraordinary." 

3  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  448.  Shortly  before  this,  the  Governor  of  New 
Providence  had  suggested  that  the  colony  be  annexed  to  Jamaica.     Ibid. 

p.  357. 

*  Ibid.  p.  570. 

•^  In  1683,  the  proprietors  instructed  Governor  Robert  Lilbume  to  reduce 
their  royalties  in  general  from  one-fifth  to  one-sixth,  and  to  demand  only  one- 
tenth  on  braziletto.    C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  516. 


JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS 


89 


In  1682,  Governor  Lynch  reported  that  these  islands  'were 
once  under  this  Government  and  must  return  to  the  King's, 
or  they  will  remain  nests  of  robbers.'  ^    At  this  time,  a  num- 
ber of  Bahama  vessels,  duly  commissioned  by  the  Governor, 
Robert  Clarke,  were  preying  upon  Spanish  commerce,  and  in 
reprisal  the  Spaniards  were  seizing  English  ships.    Whose  was 
the  initial  blame  cannot  be  determined,  as  the  hostiHties  were 
part  and  parcel  of  that  protracted  and  futile  attempt  of  Spain 
to  keep  foreigners  away  from  her  Indies.    At  all  events,  they 
seriously  interfered  with  the  aim  of  the  English  government 
to  estabhsh  peaceful  relations  with  Spain,  and  accordingly 
Clarke  was  dismissed  from  office  in  1682.^    In  his  stead  was 
appointed  Robert  Lilburne,  and  although  he  did  not  issue 
commissions,  the  attacks  on  the  Spanish  continued.^    On  their 
side,  the  Spanish  also  seized  Bahama  vessels,*  and  in  1684 
raided  and  plundered  New  Providence.^     In  his  turn,  Lil- 
bume then  commissioned  a  number  of  privateers,  ostensibly 
for  the  defence  of  the  island,  and  the  hostiHties  continued.^ 
Such,  in  general,  remained  the  condition  of  these  islands  for 
over  thirty  years.     Spain  stoutly  contested  England's  title  to 
them,  as  they  commanded  one  of  the  main  outlets  from  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico.    A  state  of  chronic  warfare  existed,  under 
which  no  settled  government  could  be  established.     Lawless 
men  and  pirates  found  a  safe  refuge  in  the  Bahamas,  and 
their  scant  natural  resources  remained  undeveloped. 


*  Ibid.  p.  284. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  246,  261,  269,  284,  291,  301,  320,  386,  387. 

3  Ibid.  pp.  395,  516.  4  Ibid.  pp.  726,  745. 

« Ibid.  pp.  578,  579,  717,  718,  726.        « Ibid.  pp.  587,  609,  621,  751. 


I 

IT 


.■r: 


t    . 

,  .1 


.!i 


ll 


i^ 


% 


I 


i; 


90 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Although  the  Bahamas  were  at  one  time  poHtically  as- 
sociated with  Jamaica,  their  connection  with  the  Bermudas 
was  much  more  intimate,  for  from  that  source  was  derived  the 
bulk  of  their  population.     Already  at  the  time  of  the  Restora- 
tion, the  Bermudas  were  almost  as  fully  developed  as  their 
small,  and  not  especially  fertile,  area  would  allow.     In  fact, 
their  natural  resources  were  already  inadequate  for  the  grow- 
ing population,  whose  surplus  drifted  to  the  other  EngHsh 
settlements,  especially  to  the  Bahamas  and  Carolina.^    The 
central  point  in    Bermudian  history  during  the    reign  of 
Charles  II  was  the  continuous  hostiUty  of  the  colony  to  the 
proprietary  body,  until  finally,  in  1684,  the  Company's  char- 
ter was  abrogated  and  royal  government  was  instituted. 
The  dissatisfaction  with  the  Company's  rule  was  both  poUt- 
ical  and  economic  in  nature,  especially  the  latter. 

The  Bermuda  Company  sought  to  monopolize  the  colony's 
commerce,  and  with  this  object  in  view  prohibited  any  one 
else  from  selling  European  goods  m  the  islands.  All  such 
suppHes  had  to  be  sent  in  the  Company's  "magazine  ship," 
and  in  this  ship  also  had  to  be  exported  the  two  chief 
staples,  tobacco  and  cedar  wood.  In  addition,  the  Com- 
pany declared  the  whale-fishery  to  be  a  royalty  belonging 
to  it,  and  exacted  fees  from  those  engaging  in  it. 

Ever  since  the  earliest  days  of  the  settlement,  the  chief 
staple  of  the  Bermudas  had   been   tobacco.    Despite   the 

iC/.  McCrady,  South  Carolina,  1670-1719,  PP-  lU,  128.  In  1666,  it 
was  said :  "Though  Barmoodoes  be  wonderful  healthy  and  fruitful,  yet  is  it 
but  a  Prison  to  the  Inhabitants,  who  are  much  streightned  for  want  of  room 
and  therefore  many  of  them  are  come  to  CaroUna,  and  more  intend  to  follow.'* 
A.  S.  Salley,  Narratives  of  Early  CaroUna,  pp.  66,  67. 


JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS 


91 


earnest  exhortations  of  the  Company  to  develop  other  indus- 
tries, such  as  wine,  sugar,  and  silk,^  this  had  continued  to  be 
the  chief  crop  for  export  to  Europe.  After  the  Restoration, 
the  Company  continued  its  efforts  to  introduce  other  prod- 
ucts, notably  olives  and  indigo,  and  complained  frequently 
of  the  poor  quality  of  the  tobacco  produced  and  ordered  the 
destruction  of  the  lower  grades.^  It  was  all  in  vain,  for 
tobacco  maintained  its  dominant  position.  The  output, 
however,  was  very  small  in  contrast  with  that  of  Virginia  or 
Maryland.  In  1679,  the  total  value  of  this  crop  was  said 
to  be  only  £5000,^  and  its  quantity  varied  during  the 
following  years  from  about  400,000  to  500,000  pounds.* 
At  this  time  the  total  importations  of  tobacco  into  Lon- 
don alone  from  all  sources  amounted  to  about  14,000,000 
pounds. 

Apart  from  what  was  consumed  in  the  colony,  the  entire 
crop  of  tobacco  had  to  be  exported  to  England  in  the  maga- 
zine ship,  and  on  every  pound  the  Company  ordered  the 
payment  of  a  duty  of  one-penny  for  the  stated  purpose  of 
defraying  the  cost  of  governing  the  colony.  Similarly,  the 
Company  prohibited  the  export  of  cedar  wood  except  in  the 
magazine  ship.  Against  these  regulations,  the  colony  com- 
plained steadfastly;  and,  as  the  Company  refused  to  recede 
from  its  position,  in  a  number  of  instances  its  privileges 
were  disregarded.    Tobacco,  especially,  was  clandestinely 

^  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  259-264,  413,  414. 

2  Lefroy,  Memorials  of  the  Bermudas  II,  pp.  134-136, 166, 167,  255,  261, 
370-372. 

3  Ibid.  II,  p.  431 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  393,  394- 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  663,  664;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  48-51. 


jl 


.1' 


i  I 


g2  THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 

exported  in  other  than  the  magazine  ship.^     Perient  Trott, 
who  in  1659  had  bought  some  shares  in  the  Company  that 
had  belonged  to  the  Earl  of  Warwick  from  the  inception 
of  the  enterprise,^  was  accused  of  secretly  exporting  large 
quantities  of  tobacco  and  some  cedar.^    As  a  consequence  of 
these  evasions,  in  1670  the  Company  renewed  its  instructions 
prohibiting  the  export  of  tobacco  except  in  the  magazine 
ship.    At  the  same  time,  in  order  to  preserve  the  colony's 
valuable  cedar  forests,  which  were  bemg  rapidly  destroyed 
by  the  exportation  of  wood  to  England  and  elsewhere,  and 
by  the  building  of  sloops  for  the  colony's  trade  and  for  sale 
in  the  West  Indies,  orders  were  sent  that  in  future  no  cedar 
could  be  exported  even  in  the  magazine  ship,  and  that  the 
vessels  built  of  it  in  the  Bermudas  could  not  be  sold  to 
residents  of  other  places.*    A  year  later,  the  Company  also 
instructed  the  Governor,  Sir  John  Heydon,  that  there  should 
be  proclaimed  a  law  making  "forfeit  all  such  goods  and  Com- 
modities that  are  usually  imported  into  the  Somer  Islands 
in  the  Company's  Ships,  m  case  the  same  be  imported  thither 
in  any  other  Ships."  ^ 

It  was  absolutely  impossible  for  the  Company,  from  so 
distant  a  centre  as  was  London,  to  enforce  these  regulations 
in  a  community  conspicuous  for  its  independent  spirit. 
The  Company's  personal  representative,  Governor  Sir  John 
Heydon,  paid  but  scant  attention  to  its  orders,  and  the  colo- 

1  Lefroy  11,  pp.  174,  i75,  iQS,  196,  303- 

2  W.  R.  Scott,  Joint-Stock  Companies  II,  pp.  294,  295. 

»  Lefroy  II,  pp.  323-326.  .*  i^- 

*  Ibid.  pp.  370-372. 


JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS 


93 


nists  flouted  its  authority.^  Since  the  regulations  continued 
to  be  violated,  the  Company's  rule  did  not,  however,  bear  so 
hard  on  the  colony  as  might  be  supposed.  Furthermore,  the 
settlement  was  by  no  means  so  dependent  on  its  European 
trade  as  were  Barbados  and  Virginia.  To  a  great  extent 
the  Bermudians  derived  their  Hvelihood  from  other  sources 
than  tobacco.  Thus  the  production  of  provisions  for  the 
other  English  colonies  had,  ever  since  the  days  of  settlement, 
been  a  fundamental  industry.  According  to  the  answers  to 
the  searching  set  of  queries  prepared  by  the  Lords  of  Trade,^ 
the  colony  in  1679  ^ad  8000  inhabitants,  including  slaves  ; 
its  exports  of  tobacco  amounted  yearly  to  £5000,  while 
at  the  same  time  beef,  pork,  fish,  wax,  honey,  pahnetto  hats, 
baskets,  and  wooden-ware,  to  the  value  of  about  £6000, 
were  annually  shipped  to  the  neighboring  colonies.  About 
ten  to  twelve  small  vessels  came  yearly  from  New  England, 
Barbados,  and  the  other  colonies  to  trade  for  provisions  ; 
eight  to  ten  ships  stopped  at  the  islands  in  their  passage  to 
and  from  other  places,  and  thirteen  to  fourteen  small  vessels, 
from  twenty  to  eighty  tons,  belonged  to  the  colony.^ 

Despite  these  countervailing  factors,  the  Company's  rule 
was  irksome  and  constituted  a  distinct  grievance.  In  1677, 
the  matter  was  brought  prominently  to  the  attention  of  the 
English  government  by  a  petition  to  the  King  from  four 

*  Ibid.  p.  285. 

*  /^^.  pp.  428-433 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  393,  394. 

'  According  to  another  account,  the  Bermudas  had  a  good  number  of 
handsome  vessels  in  which  they  traded  to  the  West  Indies  and  elsewhere  in 
America,  and  exported  cattle,  swine,  and  turkeys.  A  New  and  Most  Exact 
Account ...  of  Carolina  (DubUn,  1683),  p.  4. 


i 


> 


II 


M 


\\ 


94 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL   SYSTEM 


merchants,  all  of  whom  were  members  of  the  Bermuda  Com- 
pany.^ These  merchants,  among  whom  was  Perient  Trott, 
the  persistent  opponent  of  the  Company's  monopoly,^  com- 
plained that  they  were  not  permitted  to  send  commodities 
in  their  own  ships  to  the  Bermudas,  and  that  the  Company's 
annual  magazine  ship,  which  alone  was  allowed  to  engage 
in  this  trade,  was  unable  to  take  away  the  colony's  entire 
produce.  As  a  result  thereof,  they  stated  that  not  only 
did  the  planters  suffer  grievously,  but  tobacco  and  other 
goods  were  clandestinely  loaded  on  other  vessels,  which 
then  were  obliged  to  carry  them  to  foreign  markets  so 
as  to  escape  the  watchful  eye  of  the  Company  in  Eng- 
land.^ They  therefore  petitioned  that  such  merchants 
as  were  members  of  the  Company  might  be  allowed  full 
liberty  to  trade  independently  in  their  own  ships  to  the 
Bermudas. 

In  reply  to  this  petition,  the  Company  stated  that  the 
magazine  ship  was  seldom  fully  freighted  and  was  more  than 
adequate  to  bring  to  England  the  entire  crop  of  tobacco,  and 
further  that  Trott  had  the  same  liberty  as  other  members 
of  the  Company  to  send  out  his  merchandise  and  to  bring 
home  his  tobacco  in  this  vessel.    After  a  careful  hearing, 

1  William  Righton,  The  Disloyal  Actings  of  the  Bermuda  Company  in 
London  (1678),  pp.  15-18;  Lefroy  II,  pp.  448-450;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp. 
5,6;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  685. 

2  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  618,  619,  630;  C.  C.  1699,  p.  593- 

3  They  pointed  out  "the  great  damage  of  your  Majesty  in  the  loss  of  your 
Customs,  the  Planters  and  others  being  necessitated  by  such  usage,  to  ship 
their  Tobacco  and  Goods  on  any  Strange  Vessels  which  happen  to  touch 
there,  which  carry  the  same  to  foreign  Markets,  which  otherwise  they  would 
not  do." 


JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS 


95 


"all  Partys  attending  and  having  been  fully  heard  two 
severall  dayes  by  their  Councill  Learned  touching  the  Law- 
fulnesse  and  Reasonablenesse  of  the  said  Lawes,"  the  govern- 
ment decided  that  there  was  no  cause  to  alter  the  Company's 
method  of  managing  its  trade,  and  dismissed  the  petition. 
But  the  adroit  charge,  that  the  Company's  regulations  had 
resulted  in  a  violation  of  the  enumeration  clauses  of  the 
Navigation  Act,  made  a  distinct  impression.  Further 
consideration  was  ordered  given  to  the  question,  whether 
the  Company  should  not  send  more  than  one  ship  yearly 
"for  the  better  Conveniency  of  the  Inhabitants  in  venting 
the  Growth  and  Product  of  the  said  Island,  and  preventing 
the  Trade  of  that  Island  with  fforrain  Nations."  ^ 

Having  thus  failed  with  the  executive,  the  insurgents  in  the 
Company  brought  the  matter  before  the  House  of  Commons,^ 
but  were  apparently  equally  unsuccessful  there,  as  no  action 
was  taken.  Two  years  later,  however,  in  1679,  the  colony 
brought  forward  the  same  economic  grievances,  complaining 
that,  as  a  result  of  the  Company's  monopoly  of  supplying 
them  with  European  goods,  they  had  to  pay  excessive  prices ; 
that  they  could  not  ship  tobacco  to  the  other  colonies,  as  the 
Company,  in  order  to  collect  its  one-penny  duty,  insisted 
on  all  being  exported  to  London ;  and  that  they  were  pre- 
vented from  engaging  in  the  local  whale-fishery.  In  addi- 
tion, they  charged  that  the  Company  had  ceased  to  call 
together  the  local  legislature  and  had  imposed  unjust  taxes.' 

1  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  686,  687. 

2  Com.  Journal  IX,  p.  394. 

3  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  357-359-     Cf.  p.  389. 


■J 


"f 


r.i.      ,1 
liii     ' 

|t;I)  . 

;  I 


:lil 


E«a%B 


96 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


The  Company  handed  in  a  detailed  reply  answering  these 
charges/  and  the  entire  subject  was  then  carefully  inves- 
tigated by  the  Lords  of  Trade.    They  disregarded  the  eco- 
nomic grievances  and  placed  main  stress  on  the  anomalous 
political  situation  arising  from  the  fact  that  the  colony  was 
governed  by  a  minority  of  the  Company  resident  in  London. 
By  this  time,  three-quarters  of  the  members  or  stockholders 
of  the  Company  lived  in  the  Bermudas,  and  thus  were  virtu- 
ally debarred  from  any  but  a  sporadic  voice  m  its  decisions. 
The  Lords  of  Trade  therefore  advised  that,  in  case  the  dis- 
pute could  not  be  settled  otherwise,  a  suit  should  be  entered 
against  the  Company's  charter.^    This  report  was  approved, 
and  on  January  21,  1680,  the  Attorney-General  was  ordered 
to  institute  either  quo  warranto  or  scire  facias  proceedings 
against  the  letters-patent.^ 

Action  was,  however,  delayed,  and  in  168 1  were  pre- 
sented fresh  petitions  for  and  against  the  Company.*  One 
from  the  Bermudas  was  strongly  in  favor  of  their  'nurs- 
ing fathers,'  the  Company,  but  this  unquestionably  misrep- 
resented the  real  sentiments  of  the  majority  in  the  colony.^ 
Towards  the  end  of  1681,  the  Lords  of  Trade  advised  a 
vigorous    prosecution  of  the  writ  of  quo  warranto.    Never- 

*  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  395,  396. 

*  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  868,  869. 
3  lUd.  pp.  878,  879. 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  8-11. 

^  Mr.  W.  R.  Scott,  whose  opinions  as  a  scholarly  investigator  are  entitled 
to  the  most  careful  consideration,  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  agitation  against 
the  Company  was  to  some  extent  factitious.     It  would  seem,  however,  that 
he  has  over-accentuated  this  characteristic  of  the  contest.     W.  R.  Scott 
Joint-Stock  Companies  II,  pp.  295,  297. 


» 


JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS 


97 


theless,  the  definitive  decision  was  again  delayed,^  and  the 
ensuing  uncertainty  produced  considerable  disturbance  in 
the  colony.2  Matters  drifted  along  until  November  of  1683, 
when  the  Attorney-General,  Sir  Robert  Sawyer,  decided 
in  favor  of  instituting  the  suit,^  and  in  1684  judgment  was 
entered  against  the  Company.* 

As  a  result  of  this  decision,  the  Crown  took  the  place  of 
the  Company  and  inherited  all  its  rights  and  privileges. 
These  privileges  had  constituted  the  chief  grievance  of  the 
colony,  but  the  decision  of  the  government  to  proceed  against 
the  Company  was  based  mainly  on  the  arbitrary  nature  of 
its  poHtical  control.  In  spite  of  this  fact,  it  is  most  sur- 
prising that  the  English  government  unwisely  decided  to 
continue  the  conmaercial  regulations  of  the  preceding  regime. 
This  inevitably  led  to  considerable  friction,  and  within  a 
few  years  the  system  had  perforce  to  be  abandoned  since  it 
was  completely  unworkable. 

At  first  it  was  determined  to  appoint  Francis  Burghill, 
one  of  the  chief  figures  in  the  contest  against  the  Company,^ 
as  royal  Governor.^  He  was,  however,  unpopular  with  some 
sections  in  the  colony,^  and  the  Company's  Governor, 
Richard  Cony,  was  continued  in  office.^    This  selection 

»  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  168, 169,  270,  271,  337. 
2  Ihid.  pp.  432,  439,  675. 
'  Ibid.  p.  548. 

*  Ibid.  pp.  676,  738. 

*  On  his  activities,  see  especially  Bodleian/Rawlinson  MSS.,  D  764,  passim, 
«  C.  C.  1681-1685,  P-  663. 

^  lUd.  p.  676. 

*  Ibid.  pp.  677,  678,  680,  751. 


fl 


\ 


98 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


was  an  unwise  one,  as  Cony  was  too  closely  identified  with 
the  old  system  and  had  been  constantly  wrangling  with 
the  opponents  of  the  now  defunct  Company.*  When,  as 
royal  Governor,  he  conscientiously  endeavored  to  obey  his 
instructions  to  continue  the  prevailing  system  of  trade,  his 
position  became  untenable.  The  chief  points  of  contention 
were  the  magazine  ship  and  the  one-penny  duty  on  tobacco, 
which  at  this  time  should  have  yielded  yearly  at  least 
£1600  to  £1800.^  If  this  amount  could  have  been  collected, 
and  also  the  other  revenue  which,  subject  to  some  prior 
claims,  accrued  to  the  Crown  as  the  Company^s  successor, 
the  income  would  have  been  far  in  excess  of  the  cost  of 
governing  the  colony.^ 

In  June  of  1685,  Governor  Cony  wrote  to  the  Earl  of 
Sunderland,  James  II's  principal  Secretary  of  State,  that  the 
people  refused  to  pay  the  duty  on  tobacco  and  clandestinely 
shipped  this  product  in  casks  Hned  with  fish  to  New  Eng- 

*  On  Aug.  II,  1684,  Samuel  Trott  and  William  Righton  wrote  from  the 
Bermudas  to  Francis  Burghill:  *We  have  transcribed  the  Company's  letters 
to  the  subordinate  officers,  or,  as  they  now  call  them,  the  Janissaries,  the 
Governor  being  the  Aga.  Indeed,  it  is  difficult  to  distinguish  between  this 
Government  and  that  of  the  Grand  Signor,  except  that  we  have  not  yet  got 
to  the  bowstring.*    C.  C.  1681-1685,  P-  675.    See  also  ibid.  pp.  638,  659, 

713- 

,  2  J  bid,  pp.  663,  664. 

'  Burghill  stated  that  the  entire  cost  of  government  had  been  £300 
annually.  In  addition  to  the  tobacco  duty,  it  was  figured  that  the  Com- 
pany's lands  would  yield  £600  and  the  whale-fishery  £100  yearly.  The 
colony  besides  paid  a  number  of  small  taxes.  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  663, 
664;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  258,  259;  CO.  1/58,  75.  Actually  very  much 
less,  only  a  fraction  of  these  amounts,  was  obtained.  C.  C.  1685-1688, 
p.  392. 


JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS 


99 


land,  Barbados,  and  elsewhere,  whence  in  the  main  it  was 
exported  to  foreign  markets.  The  people,  he  added,  es- 
teemed all  government  not  of  their  own  establishment 
to  be  slavery.^  A  few  months  later,  he  reported  that 
his  appointment  had  been  distasteful  to  the  opponents  of 
the  Company,  and  that  they  refused  to  recognize  his  au- 
thority. It  was  estimated,  he  said,  that  at  least  100,000 
pounds  of  tobacco  had  been  transported  to  Barbados 
and  elsewhere.  'This  is  their  old  trade,  and  they  do  not 
like  to  be  obstructed  in  it.  Every  officer  that  appears  on 
the  side  of  the  Government  is  threatened,  and  stands  in 
danger  of  his  life.'  ^  In  fact,  the  colony  was  practically 
in  open  rebellion,  and  conditions  verging  closely  on  an- 
archy prevailed.^  As  Cony  could  not  cope  with  the  situa- 
tion, he  was  recalled;  and,  in  1686,  Sir  Robert  Robinson 
was  appointed  to  succeed  him.*  The  government  did 
not,  however,  fundamentally  alter  the  system  of  trading, 
and  the  troubles  continued.^  Robinson  was  instructed  to 
propose  to  the  Assembly  the  passage  of  laws  imposing  a 

^  Vessels,  he  said,  refused  to  enter  and  be  searched,  'calKng  it  an  op- 
pression of  the  subject.'    C.  C.  1 685-1 688,  pp.  48-51. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  100-103.  The  private  exportation  of  tobacco,  he  added,  could 
be  stopped  only  by  a  royal  order  forbidding  any  vessel  to  load  or  unload 
but  at  St.  George's  harbor,  under  the  muzzle  of  the  fort's  guns. 

3  Ibid.  pp.  128-130,  135-138,  144-146,  162-164,'  168-170,  174,  175,  179, 
471,  472. 

^  Ibid.  pp.  211,  219.  There  was  some  question  of  appointing  as  Cony's 
successor  the  well-known  customs-official  in  New  England,  Edward  Ran- 
dolph.   Toppan,  Randolph  IV,  pp.  28-31. 

^  In  1686,  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  reported  in  favor  of  retain- 
ing the  tobacco  duty  and  the  magazine  ship.  C.  C.  168 5-1688,  pp.  157, 185, 
206,  211. 


I. 


1,1 

Hi 


lii  i 


lOO 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL   SYSTEM 


duty  on  tobacco  and  improving  its   quality;  to  prevent 
ships  from  loading  or  unloading  but  at  St.  George's ;  and 
not  to  allow  the  exportation  of  any  tobacco  imtil  the  maga- 
zine ship  was  fully  laden.^ 
Shortly  after  his  arrival  in  the  colony,  in  the  spring  of 

1687,  Governor  Robinson  reported  on  the  inconvenience  of 
binding  the  people  to  one  ship  instead  of  giving  them  the 
same  liberty  that  the  other  colonies  enjoyed.^  Unless  this 
were  granted,  he  wrote  somewhat  later,  the  Bermudas 
would  be  undone,  as  the  magazine  ship  was  entirely 
inadequate.^  Of  the  last  crop  of  tobacco,  100,000  pounds 
had  to  be  left  in  the  colony  for  want  of  shipping  to 
England.  Similar  protests  were  received  from  Henry 
Hordesnell,  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  Bermudas.    Early  in 

1688,  he  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  that  free  trade  with  all 
the  English  dominions  was  necessary  for  their  prosperity, 
and  that  last  year  the  planters  had  been  forced  to  keep  their 
tobacco  till  it  rotted.*    As  was  usual  in  such  cases,  these 

1  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  270. 

2  Ihid.  p.  359. 

'  Ihid.  pp.  392, 393  ;  C.  O.  1/60, 88.  At  the  same  time,  in  the  answers  to 
the  queries  submitted  to  him,  Robinson  informed  the  government  that  the 
limitation  to  one  ship  was  very  destructive  to  trade,  as  it  kept  other  ships 
from  coming  to  the  colony.  CO.  1/60,  88vii;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  394, 
395. 

*  As  a  result  thereof,  he  wrote,  "the  Inconvenience  is  not  only  to  the 
People,  but  to  his  Maj^^,  whose  loss  in  his  customes  has  been  more  than 
3000"  this  last  yeare."  This  referred  to  the  English  duties  that  would  have 
been  collected,  could  this  tobacco  have  been  shipped  to  England.  C.  0. 1/62, 
36;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  490,  491,  519,  551.  A  similar  request  for  the 
aboUtion  of  the  magazine  ship  was  made  by  the  Bermuda  Grand  Jury. 
Ihid.  p.  529. 


JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS 


lOI 


complaints^  were  referred  to  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Customs,  who  reported  that  they  could  see  no  reason  why 
the  Bermudas  should  not  have  liberty  to  trade  as  did  the 
other  colonies  in  any  duly  qualified  ship,  provided  the  Acts 
of  Trade  and  Navigation  were  observed.^  Accordingly,  on 
October  i,  1688,  mstructions  to  this  effect  were  sent  to  the 
Governor  of  the  colony.^  At  the  same  time,  the  efforts  to 
collect  the  one-penny  duty  on  tobacco  had  also  come  to 
naught ;  the  Assembly  resolutely  refused  to  pass  a  law  impos- 
ing such  a  tax.'*  Though  the  claim  to  this  revenue  was  kept 
alive,  henceforth  it  was  of  little  practical  importance.  Thus, 
finally,  the  Bermudas  were  freed  from  their  two  main  griev- 
ances, and  although  some  vestiges  of  the  Company's  regime 
were  retained,  from  1688  on  it  was  governed  on  the  same 
general  model  as  the  other  crown  colonies  and  enjoyed  the 
same  commercial  privileges  and  rights. 

Despite  the  protracted  fight  against  the  Company's  com- 
mercial regulations,  the  Bermudas  were  in  a  prosperous 
condition.  The  colonists  simply  evaded  these  rules,  when 
they  interfered  too  much  with  their  interests,  and  moreover 
their  welfare  was  only  partially  dependent  upon  the  Euro- 
pean trade.  The  population  remained  virtually  stationary ; 
in  1679  It  was  estimated  at  8000,  and  in  1687  at  possibly  1000 

*  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  Governor  Robinson  reported  in  1688 
that,  notwithstanding  all  possible  care,  250,000  pounds  of  tobacco  had  been 
smuggled  out  of  the  colony  and  that,  as  a  result,  the  magazine  ship  had  not 
half  a  cargo.    Ihid.  p.  556. 

« Ihid.  p.  568. 
3  Ihid.  p.  597. 

*  C.  O.  1/60,  88 ;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  392,  393. 


\\ 


f 


i 


!  i 


.<ii 


I02 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


more,  one-third  of  the  total  consisting  of  slaves.^  The  to- 
bacco crop  during  the  reign  of  James  II  apparently  showed 
a  considerable  increase,  but  already  there  were  indications 
that  low  prices  would  ultimately  lead  to  the  virtual  dis- 
appearance of  this  industry.2  The  most  marked  develop- 
ment was  in  the  Bermudas'  trade  with  the  other  EngHsh 
colonies.  In  this  trade,  in  fishing,  in  whaling,  and  in  re- 
covering treasure  from  sunken  wrecks,^  was  employed  the 
colony's  growing  fleet  of  small  cedar  vessels,  which  already 
then  were  highly  esteemed,*  and  in  the  eighteenth  century 
were  considered  superior  to  any  other  craft  of  like  size. 
In  1679,  the  Bermudas  were  said  to  have  owned  only  fourteen 
small  vessels,  but  six  years  later  this  number  had  increased 
to  almost  thu-ty.^  In  1687,  Governor  Robinson  reported 
that  the  colony  had  forty-two  vessels  —  sloops,  shallops, 
and  barks  of  from  ten  to  ninety  tons  —  and  that  but  few 
ships  of  the  other  colonies  traded  there.^ 

It  is  obvious  from  the  foregoing  that  the  Bermudas  were 
of  little  direct  economic  value  to  the  Empire.  They  were 
neither  an  important  source  of  supply  for  the  mother  coun- 

*  C.  O.  1/60,  88vii;  C.  C.  168 5-1688,  pp.  394,  395. 

*  Ibid,  and  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  359. 

^In  1687,  a  number  of  Bermuda  vessels  were  engaged  in  recovering 
treasure  from  the  valuable  wreck,  which  played  so  large  a  part  in  the  for- 
tunes of  Sir  William  Phipps.  About  £50,000  was  obtained  from  this  source, 
but  the  colonial  authorities  were  able  to  secure  only  a  part  of  the  Crown's 
share  thereof.  C.  O.  1/60,  88;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  392,  393,  490,  491, 
519,  521,  529- 

^  R.  F.,  The  Present  State  of  Carolina  (London,  1682),  pp.  7,  8. 

»  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  48-51. 

*  C.  O.  1/60,  88vii;   C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  394,  395. 


JAMAICA  AND  THE  OUTLYING  ISLANDS  103 

try,-nor  did  they  afford  a  considerable  market  for  Enghsh 
manufactures.  Their  importance  was  strategic  rather  than 
economic.  The  colony  was  not  so  much  a  plantation  as  an 
imperial  outpost.  Situated  as  they  were  on  the  trade-route 
from  England  to  the  colonies  and  on  that  between  New 
England  and  the  West  Indies,  their  retention  was  necessary 
to  the  safety  of  the  Empire's  trade.  As  Judge  Jeffreys  said 
in  1682,  'Bermuda  lies  in  the  eye  of  aU  trade  to  the  West 
Indies/  and,  if  it  were  in  an  enemy's  hand,  this  important 
branch  of  England's  foreign  commerce  would  be  grievously 
imperilled.^ 

1  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  439-  Another  writer  pointed  out  that  Spain  could 
be  from  nowhere  else  so  cheaply,  certainly,  and  effectively  harassed  as  from 
the  Bermudas.    Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  125. 


4 


CHAPTER  VIII 

VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND 

English  poKcy  towards  the  colonial  tobacco  industry  —  Virginia  under  the 
laws  of  trade  —  Criticisms  of  John  Bland  and  Sir  William  Berkeley  — 
Attitude  of  the  colony  —  Attempts  to  restrict  the  tobacco  output  and 
to  diversify  Virginia's  economic  Ufe  —  Bacon's  rebellion  —  The  causes 
of  the  social  imrest  —  Economic  development  of  Virginia  —  Illegal  trade 
—  Maryland  —  Quarrels  with  the  customs  officials  —  Their  significance. 

Like  the  sugar  colonies,  Virginia  and  Maryland  were 
highly  esteemed  by  the  seventeenth-century  imperialists, 
but  in  this  case  their  approbation  was  far  from  being  so 
unconditional.  Although  they  produced  a  commodity, 
tobacco,  for  which  there  was  an  extensive  demand,  not  only 
in  England,  but  also  in  foreign  markets,  yet  it  could  not  be 
forgotten  that  a  mmiber  of  the  English  coimties  had  clearly 
demonstrated  their  fitness  for  this  crop.  Moreover,  the 
tobacco  trade  was  passing  through  a  series  of  recurrent 
crises,  and  many  in  England  feared  that  the  outcome  would 
be  that  Virginia  and  Maryland  would  be  diverted  to  other 
pursuits  that  would  compete  with  English  industries  and 
lessen  the  value  of  these  colonies  as  markets  for  English 
manufactures.^ 

The  exclusive  reliance  of  these  colonies  on  tobacco  as 
virtually  their  sole  article  for  export  had  been  consistently 
opposed  by  the  first  Stuarts;  and,  under  the  auspices  of  the 

1  See  atUej  Vol.  I,  pp.  46,  145,  146. 
104 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND  jo? 

home  government,  with  the  fuU  support  of  colonial  senti- 
ment, various  unsuccessful  attempts  had  been  made  to 
introduce  other  products,  such  as  England  was  obliged  to 
purchase  from  her  European  rivals.  This  early  opposition 
to  the  culture  of  tobacco  had  been  in  part  due  to  a  strong 
moral  aversion  from  smoking,  which  persisted  for  two  genera- 
tions. But,  in  part  also,  it  proceeded  from  a  keen  realization 
of  the  fact  that  the  fluctuations  in  the  price  of  tobacco,  and 
especiaUy  its  generaUy  low  market  value  consequent  upon 
a  rapidly  expanding  production,  rendered  social  conditions 
in  Virginia  and  Maryland  precariously  unstable. 

In  general,  the  policy  of  the  Restoration  government 
towards  the  tobacco  industry  foUowed  the  previously  estab- 
Hshed  Unes.    The  attempts  to  estabUsh  other  crops  in  Vir- 
ginia stm  continued,  but  there  was  no  longer  manifest  any 
desire  entirely  to  displace  tobacco.    Instead  of  supplanting 
this  staple,  these  newer  products,  such  as  silks  and  naval 
stores,  were  merely  to  supplement  it.    In  the  reaction  against 
the  sterner  moral  code  of  the  preceding  decades,  smoking  was 
no  longer  regarded  as  a  serious  vice.    Moreover,  heavy  taxes 
were  imposed  upon  tobacco  in  England,  and  of  aU  the  colo- 
nial products  it  contributed  by  far  the  most  to  the  English 
customs  revenue.!    In  the  eyes  of   Charles   II's  advisers, 
haunted  as  they  were  by  the  perpetual  nightmare  of  national 
bankruptcy,  this  fiscal  advantage  tended  naturally  to  offset 
any  stiU  persistmg  moral  antipathy  to  the  hedonistic  uses 
of  tobacco.    In  1661,  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs 
significantly  reported  that  the  colonies  were  beginning  "to 

•  Cf.  C.  O.  1/30,  78 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  508,  530. 


a  *E 


/ 


IWI 


^ 


II 


Ifil 


!       I 


wm 


io6 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


grow  into  Commodities  of  great  Value  and  esteeme,  and 
though  Some  of  them  Continue  in  Tobacco,  yet  upon  the 
Returne  hither  it  Smells  well,  and  paies  more  Custome  to 
his  Ma^*^  than  the  East  Indies  four  times  ouer."  ^  Despite 
this,  the  Restoration  government  at  the  outset  sought 
earnestly  to  mitigate  '^e  evils  connected  with  the  close  de- 
pendence of  Virginia  and  Maryland  on  this  crop  by  encourag- 
ing the  introduction  and  cultivation  of  other  staples.  These 
attempts,  however,  came  to  naught,  since  it  was  found 
impossible  to  divert  the  tobacco  planters  to  other  pursuits. 
At  the  same  time,  the  revenue-producing  quahties  of  to- 
bacco were  making  an  ever  greater  impression  on  the  Eng- 
lish statesmen,  and  hence,  ultimately,  the  EngHsh  govern- 
ment abandoned  its  fruitless  efforts  to  diversify  the  economic 
life  of  Virginia  and  Maryland  and  looked  askance  at  all 
schemes  to  lessen  the  size  of  the  tobacco  crop. 

In  another  respect,  also,  the  Restoration  implied  new 
conditions  for  Virginia  and  Maryland,  since  the  commercial 
code  put  into  effect  at  that  time  meant  a  more  strict  control 
of  the  tobacco  trade  and  closer  commercial  relations  between 
the  colonies  and  the  mother  country.  The  Acts  of  Trade  and 
Navigation  did  not,  however,  change  conditions  to  the  same 
extent  in  Virginia  and  Maryland  as  they  did  in  Barbados, 
for  the  comprehensive  colonial  system  of  the  Restoration 
era  was  in  the  main  based  upon  principles  that  had  been  grad- 
ually and  empirically  elaborated  under  the  first  Stuarts  in 
the  actual  process  of  regulating  the  tobacco  trade. 

In  1620,  the  English  government  prohibited  the  growing 

1  S.  P.  Domestic,  Ch.  II,  XLIV,  no.  12 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  319^  320. 


' 


■ 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND  107 

of  tobacco  in  England,  and  in  return  the  Virginia  Company 
agreed  to  pay  customs  on  tobacco  in  excess  of  the  amount 
stipulated  in  its  charter,  but  equal  only  to  one-half  of  those 
imposed  on  the  competing  Spanish  product.'    This  arrange- 
ment did  not  give  English  colonial  tobacco  a  monopoly 
of  the  home  market,  for  Spanish  tobacco  continued  to  be 
imported  in  spite  of  the  discriminating  duties.    Hence, 
three  years  later,  in  order  to  secure  such  a  monopoly,  the 
companies  colonizmg  Virginia  and  the  Bermudas  agreed  to 
ship  aU  their  tobacco  to  England,  in  consideration  of  the 
exclusion  from  England  of  aU  but  a  very  smaU  quantity  of 
the  Spanish  product.^    Thereafter,  this  policy  was  continued 
and  extended.    In  the  first  place,  foreign  tobacco  was  practi- 
caUy  excluded  from  England  and  Ireland,  either  by  absolute 
prohibitions  or  by  marked  differential  duties,  and  the  cul- 
ture of  the  plant  within  these  kingdoms  was  forbidden. 
The  Restoration  government  adopted  these  principles  from 
its  predecessors.    Secondly,  the  restriction  of  the  colony's 
exports  of  tobacco  to  England  had  been  maintained  by  both 
James  I  and  Charles  I.    This  regulation  had,  however, 
been  aUowed  to  lapse  during  the  confusion  of  the  Interreg- 
num.   Traces  of  this  principle  stiU  perdured  during  that 
period  ;  and,  despite  the  non-existence  of  any  positive  pro- 
hibition, the  shipment  of  colonial  products  to  foreign  mar- 
kets was  looked  upon  as  reprehensible.    It  is  of  considerable 
significance  that  Virginia  in  1658  and  in  1660  voluntarily  im- 
posed a  heavy  surtax  on  tobacco  shipped  to  any  place  but 

'  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  111-114. 

« Ibid.  p.  132 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  6i,  62. 


'■    I 


r 

1 


io8 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


England  and  its  European  dominions.^  The  Restoration 
government  definitely  revived  this  earlier  Stuart  practice, 
and  the  eniuneration  of  tobacco  made  illegal  the  direct 
shipment  of  this  product  to  foreign  markets.  As  some 
trading  of  this  nature  had  been  carried  on  in  Virginia  dur- 
ing the  Interregnum,  its  prohibition  under  the  Restoration 
system  to  this  extent  implied  a  greater  restraint.  Similarly, 
the  Staple  Act  of  1663  prohibited  the  importation  of  Euro- 
pean goods  into  the  colonies  from  any  place  but  England, 
and  this  regulation  was  also  more  restrictive  than  that 
previously  in  force.  By  the  Order  in  Council  of  1633^  and 
the  Act  of  1650,  foreigners  had  been  forbidden  to  trade  to 
the  colonies,  but  EngUsh  vessels  could  bring  to  them  directly 
from  Holland  and  other  foreign  countries  such  manufactures 
as  they  wanted.    This  trade  was  now  interdicted. 

Thus,  to  some  extent,  the  Restoration  system  meant  a 
more  stringent  control  of  the  commerce  of  Virginia  and 
Maryland.  As  these  colonies  were  not  in  a  thriving  state, 
this  naturally  produced  some  dissatisfaction.  In  consider- 
ing the  justice  of  complaints  of  this  nature,  it  is  essential 
to  keep  in  mind  that  the  system  in  force  imposed  restraints 
on  the  metropolis  as  well  as  on  the  colony.  While  the 
colonial  planter  was  forced  to  ship  his  tobacco  to  England 
and  to  buy  his  supplies  from  English  merchants,  on  the  other 
hand,  not  only  was  the  English  smoker  denied  the  use  of  the 
Spanish  product,  but  the  cultivation  of  tobacco  in  England 
and  Ireland  was  prohibited.  The  forcible  and  long-contin- 
ued measures  required  to  uproot  this  industry  in  England 

*  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  400-402.  *  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  192. 


i 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND 


109 


furnish  ample  proof  of  its  vigor  and  vitality,  and  indicate 
plainly  the  sacrifice  exacted  from  the  English  farmer.  This 
prohibition,  combined  with  the  virtual  exclusion  of  Spanish 
and  other  foreign  tobaccos,  obliged  the  English  smoker  to 
waive  his  own  individual  taste  and  to  use  the  English  colo- 
nial product.  Just  as  the  Methuen  Treaty  with  Portugal  led 
to  the  great  consumption  of  port  in  eighteenth-century  Eng- 
land, and  the  permission  to  import  wine  directly  from  the 
Portuguese  islands  off  Africa  made  the  Madeira  product 
the  favorite  beverage  of  the  American  colonial  planter,  so 
this  monopoly  accorded  to  Virginia  and  Maryland  deter- 
mined the  taste  of  the  English  consiuner  and  led  to  habits 
that  still  persist.  In  such  a  system  of  mutual  monopoly,  it 
is  well-nigh  impossible  to  determine  with  any  degree  of  cer- 
titude the  relative  extent  of  sacrifice  demanded  from  each 
of  the  parties  to  the  reciprocal  agreement.  It  is,  however, 
obvious  that  any  criticism  of  England's  regulation  of  the 
colonial  tobacco  trade,  which  is  based  on  a  laissez-faire  so- 
cial philosophy,  is  equally  appUcable  to  the  arrangement 
by  means  of  which  the  tobacco  planter  secured  exclusive 
privileges  in  the  home  market. 

The  most  searching  criticism  of  English  policy  emanated 
from  the  pen  of  a  prominent  English  merchant,  John  Bland, 
one  of  Pepys's  friends.^  Apart  from  his  other  interests,^ 
Bland  had  settled  two  brothers  in  Virginia,  and  according 

^  Pepys,  Sept.  5,  1662,  Feb.  13,  1663,  March  30,  1664,  May  2,  1664, 
June  14,  1 666. 

2  Cf.  C.  C.  1574-1660,  p.  451 ;  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1660-1667,  pp.  633,  662. 
Bland  was  also  Mayor  of  Tangier.  E.  M.  G.  Routh,  Tangier,  pp.  120-123  ; 
Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1669-1672,  p.  108. 


■I 


II 

II 


iUi 


i\ 


no 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


to  his  own  account  had  supplied  them  with  the  exceptionally 
large  sum  of  £10,000,  *  expecting  proportionable  returns.' 
On  their  death,  he  sent  over  his  son  Giles  —  the  well- 
known  Virginia  Collector  of  the  Customs  —  to  take  care  of 
this  estate.^  Thus  Bland's  interests  were  closely  identified 
with  those  of  the  colony,  which  fact  undoubtedly  somewhat 
tinged  the  views  expressed  in  the  undated  "Humble  Remon- 
strance," prepared  by  him  some  few  years  after  the  Resto- 
ration system  had  been  put  into  effect.^  Therein  Bland 
maintained  that  the  Act  of  1650  —  "for  debarring  the  Hol- 
landers trading  to  those  Plantations"  —  had  been  secured 
by  the  EngKsh  merchants  for  the  purpose  of  monopolizing 
and  engrossing  the  trade  of  Virginia  and  Maryland,  and 
of  being  thus  enabled  to  secure  tobacco  cheaply  and  to  force 
the  colonists  to  purchase  their  goods  at  high  prices.  Apart 
from  these  purely  personal  and  selfish  ends  of  the  merchants, 
this  measure,  according  to  Bland,  was  based  on  the  following 
broader  pubHc  grounds:  that  the  Dutch  would  not  permit 
the  English  to  trade  to  their  Eastern  possessions,  while 
their  intercourse  with  Virginia  and  Maryland  injured  Eng- 
land's commerce  both  there  and  at  home,  hindered  the 
increase  of  shipping,  and  lessened  the  customs.  But  this 
argument,  Bland  claimed,  was  unsound,  because  the  Dutch 
Indies  had  a  natural  monopoly  of  certain  products,  while 
Virginia  and  Maryland  afforded  only  tobacco,  as  well  as 
com  and  cattle,  "commodities  almost  in  every  country  what- 

*  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  392. 

2  This  memorial  is  in  the  London  Public  Record  Office,  but  it  has  been 
printed  in  Va.  Mag.  I,  pp.  142-155. 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND 


III 


ever  to  be  had.''  He  maintained  that,  as  a  result  of  the 
exclusion  of  foreigners  from  the  English  colonial  trade,  cou- 
pled with  the  subsequent  enumeration  clauses  in  the  Act 
of  1660,  tobacco  was  being  successfully  planted  in  Holland 
and  also  in  France.  The  quantity  grown  in  Holland,  he 
further  contended,  would  increase  greatly;  and,  in  time, 
the  Dutch  would  become  accustomed  to  their  home-grown 
tobacco,  even  though  it  was  of  poorer  quality  than  that  of 
Virginia,  just  as  the  English  had  been  diverted  from  the 
superior  Spanish  article  to  the  inferior  product  of  their  own 
colonies.  Furthermore,  he  pointed  out,  that  the  Dutch  used 
a  grade  of  Maryland  and  Virginia  tobacco  different  from 
that  consumed  in  England,  and  that,  if  the  colonies  were 
unable  to  dispose  of  that  portion  of  their  crop  to  the  Dutch, 
they  would  have  no  market  for  it  whatsoever.  As  a  con- 
sequence thereof,  he  predicted  the  ruin  of  the  tobacco  colonies 
unless  the  system  of  trading  were  radically  changed.  But, 
if  the  repeal  of  the  Navigation  Act  were  out  of  the  question, 
he  suggested  that  the  English  merchants  be  obliged  to  supply 
the  colonies  as  cheaply  "as  the  Hollanders  used  to,''  when 
they  were  admitted  to  trade  there,  that  they  take  the  entire 
crop  of  tobacco  at  the  prices  formerly  paid  by  the  Dutch, 
and  that  they  charge  the  same  low  freight  rates.  No  means 
could  have  been  devised  to  put  into  effect  these  suggestions, 
however  much  or  little  they  may  have  commended  them- 
selves ;  and,  as  was  the  fate  of  many  other  memorials,  that  of 
Bland  was  fruitless  and  was  shelved  in  the  EngHsh  archives. 
Despite  its  obvious  over-statements  and  confident  proph- 
ecies that  never  came  true,  Bland's  argument  rested  upon  a 


r 


v1 


«l 


* 


ZI2 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


substantially  true  foundation.  Its  fundamental  error  was 
that  only  one  side  of  the  question  was  considered.  No 
attention  whatsoever  was  paid  to  the  fact  that  the  system 
in  force  was  the  historical  outcome  of  a  bargain  between 
the  mother  country  and  the  colony.  The  advantages  that 
Maryland  and  Virginia  derived  from  their  monopoly  of  the 
English  market  were  completely  ignored. 

Less  convincing  and  less  cogently  reasoned  was  a  spirited 
attack  on  England's  policy  by  Virginia's  veteran  Governor, 
Sir  William  Berkeley.      During  the  Interregnum,  Berkeley 
had  been  deprived  of  his  post,  but  early  in   1660,  when 
the  restoration  of  Charles  II  was  aU  but  inevitable,  he 
was  reinstated   by  the  colony,  and  shortly  thereafter  a 
royal   commission   appointing  him  Governor  was  issued.  ^ 
Apart  from   his   official  position,  Berkeley  had  large  pri- 
vate interests   in   Virginia  and  was  deeply  interested  in 
its  welfare.     In  1662,  he  was  in  England  as  the  colony's 
representative,  with  the  express  object  of  securing  certain 
measures    designed    to    further   its   prosperity.    For    this 
purpose,  he  wrote  a  memorial,  entitled  "A  Discourse  and 
View   of  Virginia,"  which  described   the   handicaps   that 
hampered  its  growth.    Among  the  hindrances  mentioned 
by  him  was  the  fact  that  the  planters  were  restricted  to 
trade  with  England  only.     Such  a  regulation,  he  said,  would 
not  be  opposed  by  any  good  subject  were  it  for  the  benefit 
of  the  Crown  or  of  England,  "but  if  it  shaU  appear  that 
neither  of  those  are  advantaged  by  it,  then  wee  cannot  but 
resent,  that  forty  thousand  people  should  bee  empoverished 

»  Hening  I,  p.  530;  C.  C.  1574-1660,  p.  486. 


i 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND  h, 

to  enrich  little  more  then  forty  merchts,  who  being  the  onely 
buyers  of  our  Tobacco,  giues  us  what  they  please  for  it,  and 
after  it  is  here  SeU  how  they  please,  and  indeed  haue  forty 
thousand  Servants  in  us  at  cheaper  rates,  then  any  other 
Men  haue  Slaues,  for  they  find  them  meat,  drink  and  Clothes, 
wee  furnish  ourselves  and  their  Seamen  with  meat  and  drink,' 
and  aU  our  Sweat  and  labour,  as  they  order  vs,  wiU  hardly 
procure  vs  course  clothes  to  keep  vs  from  the  extremities 
of  heat  and  cold :  yett  if  these  pressures  of  vs  did  advance 
the  Custome,  or  benefitt  the  Nation,  wee  should  not  repme; 
but  that  it  does  the  Contrary  to  both  I  shaU  easDy  evidence 
when  Commanded."  * 

Nine  years  later,^  Berkeley  again  took  up  this  question. 
In  answer  to  the  query  of  the  Council  for  Foreign  Planta- 
tions, as  to  what,  if  any,  obstructions  hmdered  Virginia's 
trade  and  navigation,  he  wrote':  "Mighty  and  distructive 
by  that  seuere  Act  of  parUament  w'"  excludes  us  from 
haueuing  any  Comerce  w"-  any  Nacon  in  Europe  but  our 
owne,  Soe  that  wee  cannot  add  to  our  plantacon  any  Com- 
odity  that  growes  out  of  itt,  as  oliue  trees.  Cotton  or  Vines, 
besides  this  wee  Cannot  procure  any  skUfuU  Men  for  our 
now  hopefuU  Comodity  Silke,  For  it  is  not  lawfuU  for  us  to 

■  Berkeley  also  added  that  the  Virginia  Assembly  had  desired  him  to 
propose  that  such  ships  as  had  been  built  in  the  colony  might  be  permitted 
to  carry  its  produce  to  any  market.  He  claimed  that  by  these  means  the 
exceUence  of  their  timber  would  become  known,  and  that  as  they  were  able 
to  build  ships  more  cheaply  than  could  England,  the  mother  country's 
forests  would  last  longer.    Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  356" 

'  In  z666,  Berkeley  wrote  to  Lord  Arlington,  requesting  permission  for 
two  Scottish  ships  to  trade  to  Virginia.    C.  C.  i66i-i668,  no.  1340 

C.  O.  1/26,  77i;  Hening  II,  pp.  511-517. 


■ii 


I 


II 


I 


\ 


114 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


carry  a  pipe  Staf  or  a  Bushell  of  Come  to  any  place  in 
Europe  out  of  the  King's  dominions.  If  this  were  for  his 
Maty  Seruice  or  the  good  of  his  Subjects  wee  should  not 
repine  w-euer  our  Sufferings  are  for  it.  But  on  my  Soule 
it  is  the  Contrary  for  both,  And  this  is  the  cause  Why  noe 
Small  or  gr*  vessels  are  built  here."  He,  therefore,  suggested 
that  they  should  have  Uberty  to  transport  their  pipe-staves, 
timber,  and  com  directly  to  foreign  markets.  Their  ina- 
bility to  do  so  constituted  the  gravamen  of  his  complaint, 
and  was  due  to  a  strange  misinterpretation  of  the  Naviga- 
tion Act  by  the  English  authorities. 

This  statute  provided  that  ships  before  leaving  England 
for  the  colonies  should  give  bond  to  bring  back  the  enumer- 
ated commodities  laden  there.  Instead  of  demanding  these 
limited  bonds,  the  English  ofl&cials  insisted  on  security 
being  given  to  bring  to  England  all  the  commodities  laden 
in  the  colonies.  In  1661,  on  the  complaint  of  some  New 
England  merchants  that  their  timber,  fish,  and  other  coarse 
merchandise  could  be  disposed  of  in  foreign  markets  to 
better  advantage  than  in  England,  an  Order  in  Council 
specifically  exempted  the  trade  of  those  colonies  from  this 
regulation.^  But  ships  trading  from  England  to  the  other 
plantations  did  not  enjoy  this  privilege.^  In  1674,  however, 
on  a  report  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  that  these 

1  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  28-30;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  303,  304;  Cal.  Treas. 
Books,  1660-1667,  pp.  206,  207 ;  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.  Series  IE,  IV,  pp. 
279,  280. 

2  On  the  provisions  of  the  bonds  demanded  from  these  vessels,  see  P.  C. 
Register  Charles  II,  III,  ff.  450,  451 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  365-367 ;  N.  Y.  Col. 
Doc.  Ill,  pp.  44-46,  50. 


VIRGINIA  AND   MARYLAND 


115 


unenumerated  commodities  were  "really  not  confined  to 
be  brought  home  hither,  as  is  pretended,  but  that  suffi- 
cient Liberty  is  given  to  the  Merchants  by  the  said  Act," 
the  above  Order  in  Council  of  1661  was  revoked  as  su- 
perfluous.^ As  thereafter  no  hindrance  was  placed  in 
the  way  of  Virginia's  com  and  timber  being  shipped  to  any 
market  whatsoever,  Berkeley's  indictment  was  no  longer 
pertinent. 

Apart  from  these  criticisms  of  Bland  and  Berkeley,  there 
was  virtually  no  complaint  against  the  system  of  trade 
enjoined  by  the  Navigation  Acts.  While  the  Barbados 
Assembly  and  that  colony's  governors  were  vociferous  in 
their  protests,  the  Virginia  legislature  remained  strangely 
mute.  Whether  this  silence  was  due  merely  to  a  recognition 
of  the  futility  of  any  attempt  to  have  these  laws  altered,  or 
proceeded  from  a  tacit  acknowledgment  of  the  fundamental 
equity  of  the  arrangement  in  its  entirety,  cannot  be  positively 
determined.  Unquestionably,  the  colony  would  have  re- 
joiced in  a  relaxation  of  the  system,  and  would  especially 
have  welcomed  permission  to  ship  tobacco  directly  to  foreign 
markets.  In  1673,  Sir  John  Knight,  a  prominent  Bristol 
merchant,  wrote  to  the  Earl  of  Shaftesbury  about  the 
desire  of  the  Virginia  planters  '  for  a  trade  with  the  Dutch 
and  all  other  nations,  and  not  to  be  singly  bound  to  England, 
they  saying  openly  that  they  are  in  the  nature  of  slaves,  so 
that  the  hearts  of  the  greatest  part  of  them  are  taken  away 
from  his  Majesty,  and  his  Majesty's  best,  greatest,  and 
richest  plantation  is  in  danger,  with  the  planters'  consent, 

» P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  603. 


II 


'fi 


ii6 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


to  fall  into  the  enemy's  hands.'  ^    Even  with  full  allowance 
for  the  writer's  peculiar  temperament— Roger  North  called 
him  'the  most  perverse,  clamorous  old  party  man  in  the 
whole  city  or  nation '  2  —  there  is  no  reason  to  question 
the  essential  accuracy  of  this  statement.    The  farmers  of 
Worcestershire  and  Gloucestershire  undoubtedly  felt  even 
more  bitter  at  the  soldiers  who  annually  uprooted  their 
tobacco  plants.    In  any  reciprocal  arrangement,  mankind  is 
prone  to  ignore  the  benefits  conferred  and  to  dwell  solely 
upon  the  restraints  imposed.    The  essential  point  is,  would 
Virginia  have  welcomed  complete  free  trade  with  the  re- 
moval both  of  all  restrictions  and  of  all  special  privileges  ? 
Obviously,  no  positive  answer   can   be  made   to   such   a 
hypothetical  question,  but  unquestionably  the  gains  and 
losses  would  have  been  so  evenly  balanced  as  to  render  a 
decision  extremely  difficult. 

Virginia,  however,  at  no  time  pressed  this  point,  but 
sought  by  other  means  to  better  her  economic  condition. 
The  urgent  need  was  to  raise  the  price  of  tobacco,  about 
which  complaints  had  been  just  as  insistent  before,  as  after 
1660.  From  1649  to  1662  the  price  of  tobacco  in  Virginia 
fluctuated  between  a  half -penny  and  threepence  a  pound, 
and  at  the  latter  date,  according  to  Governor  Berkeley,  it 
was  one-penny.3  The  colony  realized  that  the  low  market 
value  of  its  tobacco  was  primarily  due  to  over-production, 

^  C.  O.  1/30,  78;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  530. 
2  See  Diet,  of  Nat.  Biography,  Sir  John  Knight,  'the  elder.' 
^Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  356*;  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  417,  418; 
Bruce,  Economic  History  I.  p.  389. 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND 


117 


and  hence  favored  measures  for  curtailing  and  improving 
the  quality  of  the  crop,  and,  to  compensate  for  this  restricted 
output,  desired  the  introduction  of  other  staples. 

In  1 66 1,  with  the  object  of  preventing  forestalling  and  of 
maintaining  an  even  price  in  England,  the  representatives 
of  Virginia's  interests  in  London  requested  an  order  pro- 
hibiting the  departure  of  any  ship  from  the  tobacco  colonies 
before  May  i,  1662.  At  first  instructions  to  this  effect  were 
issued,  but  they  were  subsequently  revoked  when  it  was 
pointed  out  that  such  ships  as  had  left  England  before  this 
had  been  proposed  would  be  prejudiced  thereby.^  In 
1662,  this  request  was  renewed,  and  at  the  same  time  the 
English  government  was  urged  to  prohibit  the  planting  of 
tobacco  in  Virginia  and  Maryland  after  June  10  in  any  year. 
The  object  of  this  suggested  prohibition  was  to  raise  the 
price  by  improving  the  quality  of  the  crop  and  by  lessen- 
ing its  quantity,  since  tobacco  planted  after  the  date  men- 
tioned was  most  likely  to  be  inferior.  In  addition,  the  cur- 
tailment of  the  tobacco  output  would  permit  the  production 
of  more  staple  commodities,  such  as  silk,  flax,  hemp,  pitch, 
and  potashes.^  In  1661,  the  Virginia  Assembly  had  passed 
a  law  prohibiting  the  planting  of  tobacco  after  June  30, 
provided  Maryland  would  join  in  this  regulation,  but  other- 
wise only  after  July  10.^  Obviously,  the  success  of  such 
a  measure  depended  upon  the  concurrence  of  Maryland. 

1  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  317,  318. 

*  Ibid.  p.  331;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  301,  307;  Va.  Mag.  XVIII,  pp. 
299-300. 

'  Hening  II,  p.  32.  In  1662,  Virginia  prohibited  planting  after  July  10. 
Ibid.  II,  p.  119. 


I! 


ii8 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Without  such  joint-action  this  restriction  would  not  only  be 
ineffective,  but  positively  injurious  to  Virginia,  as  its  people 
would  emigrate  to  Maryland.^  It  was  mainly  with  the 
object  of  obtaining  an  order  binding  on  Lord  Baltimore's 
colony  that  recourse  was  had  to  the  English  government. 

In  its  efforts  to  curtail  the  tobacco  crop  and  to  introduce 
other  products,  Virginia  had  an  able  and  influential  advocate 
in  Governor  Berkeley,  who  was  at  this  time  in  London  for 
the  specific  purpose  of  advancing  the  colony's  economic  in- 
terests.2     In  a  memorial  ^  prepared  by  him  for  the  govern- 
ment, he  glowingly  described  the  great  resources  of  Virginia 
apart  from  "  the  vicious  ruinous  plant  of  Tobacco,"  which, 
however,  he  admitted,  had  brought  more  revenue  to  the 
Crown  "than  all  the  Islands  in  America,"    He  maintained 
that,  if  "resoluting  instructions  and  indulgent  encourage- 
ments" were  sent  to  the  colony,  within  seven  years  England 
would  no  longer  be  dependent  upon  northern  and  southern 
Europe  for  her  supplies  of  silk,  flax,  hemp,  pitch,  tar,  iron, 
masts,  timber,  and  potash.     "For  all  of  these  but  iron,  wee 
want  only  Skillfull  men  to  produce  them,  the  cheapest  and 
readiest  way ;    but  the  making  of  iron  will  require  abler 
purses  then  wee  are  yett  masters  of."    In  order  to  procure 
experienced  men  to  start  these  new  industries,  Berkeley 
stated  that  the  Virginia  Assembly  had  requested  him  to  pro- 
pose that  an  additional  import  duty  of  one-penny  a  pound 

^  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  ff.  356*-  ^ 

2  Va.  Mag.  XIV,  pp.  195,  196. 

3  "A  Discourse  and  View  of  Virginia,"  in  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395, 
ff-  354  ^i  seq. 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND 


119 


be  levied  on  tobacco  in  England,  out  of  which  should  be 
defrayed  the  expenses  necessitated  by  this  scheme,  as  well  as 
all  the  public  charges  of  Virginia.^  Their  existing  intolerable 
condition,  according  to  him,  was  primarily  due  to  Virginia's 
sole  reliance  "on  this  vicious  weed  of  tobacco,  which  at 
length  has  brought  them  to  that  extremity,  that  they  can 
neither  handsomely  subsist  with  it,  nor  wi%ut  it."  ^ 

There  was  every  reason  to  expect  that  these  views  would 
commend  themselves  to  the  government.  They  coincided 
with  the  policy  of  its  predecessors,  and  in  166 1  the  Council 
for  Foreign  Plantations  had  advised  that  the  Virginia 
planters  be  instructed  to  apply  themselves  to  the  increase 
and  improvement  of  flax,  silk,  and  other  manufactures.^ 
When,  however,  Virginia's  request  for  a  restriction  of 
tobacco  planting  was  considered,  it  was  peremptorily 
rejected,  and  the  Privy  Council  declared  that  "they  hence- 
forth would  not  receive  any  Petition  of  that  nature."  *  At 
the  instance  of  the  petitioners,  a  fortnight  or  so  later,  the 
Council  reconsidered  its  hasty  decision,  declaring  that 
"it  was  not  their  Intention  to  forbid  or  discourage  the 
Merchants  and  Planters  of  Virginia  from  making  their 
Addresses  to  them,"  and  summoned  the  interested  parties, 

.  ^  *  See  also  Berkeley's  petition  in  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  2t33- 

^  Berkeley  retained  a  large  share  of  the  eariier  aversion  from  tobacco.  In 
1666,  he  wrote  to  Lord  Clarendon :  "From  my  soul  I  wish  it,  and  so  doe  al 
good  men,  that  his  Matie  and  the  Parlament  would  impose  more  customes 
and  greater  on  this  vild  weed  and  imploy  some  part  of  it  in  building  forts 
where  they  are  necessary."  Bodleian,  Clarendon  MSS.  84,  ff.  230,  231. 
'  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  ff.  335  et  seq.;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  32. 
*  P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  II,  f.  641 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  331  j  C.  C. 
1661-1668,  no.  308. 


I20 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


including  Lord  Baltimore,  to  a  fresh  hearing.^    As  a  result 
thereof,  on  June  29,  1662,  the  CouncH  ordered  Berkeley 
to  repair  to  his  government  and  to  agree  with  Maryland 
upon  some  plan  for  "the  promoting  of  the  Planting  of 
Hemp,  Flax,  and  other  Hke  considerable  Comodityes  in 
those  Plantations,  and  the  Lessening  of  Planting  Tobacco 
there ;  And  that  the  restraint  for  planting  Tobacco  may  be 
alike  in  both  Places."     As  regards  the  request  that  ships 
be  enjoined  from  leaving  the  colonies  in  question  before 
May  I,  1663,  the  Council  decided  that  there  should  be  no 
such  restraint,  unless  it  should  be  thought  fit  by  the  respec- 
tive Governors,  Councils,  and  Assembhes  of  both  Virginia 
and  Maryland.2    This  decision  was  embodied  in  the  for- 
mal set  of  instructions  issued  to  Berkeley  on  his  departure 
for  Virginia  ;  and,  in  addition,  he  was  ordered  to  encourage 
the  planters  to  build  towns  on  every  river,  in  which  "they 
cannot  have  a  better  example  than  from  their  neighbours  of 
New  England,  who  have  in  few  years  raised  that  colony  to 
breed  wealth,  reputation,  and  security.''    Berkeley  was  also 
ordered  to   transmit   to  England  his  opinion  and  advice 
regarding  the  erection  of  an  iron-work,  which  Charies  II 
himseH  wished  to  undertake.^    That  the  government  was 

>  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  331. 

*Ihid.  pp.  331,  332.    Berkeley,  Sir  Henry  Chicheley,  Edward  Digges 
Richard    Lee,   and    others,   however,   again   petitioned    that    orders    be 
issued  preventing  the  tobacco  ships  from  leaving  before  May  i    1663     A 
large  number  of  English  traders  to  the  tobacco  colonies  sent  in  a  counter- 
petition,  and  the  decision  of  the  government  remained  unchanged     C  C 
i66i-i668,nos.  358,  365,  366. 

3  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  368;  Va.  Mag.  Ill,  pp.  15-20. 


VIRGINL\  AND  MARYLAND 


121 


keenly  interested  in  this  scheme  to  introduce  staple  com- 
modities is  manifest  from  the  fact  that  Berkeley  was  given 
permission  to  import  customs  free  a  three  hundred  ton  ship's 
cargo  of  tobacco,  whenever  he  should  send  to  England  a  ' 
vessel  of  the  same  burden  laden  with  silk,  hemp,  flax,  pitch, 
and  potash  produced  in  Virginia.^ 

In   accordance   with   these   instructions,   commissioners 

appointed  by  Governor  Berkeley  and  by  Governor  Calvert 

of  Maryland  held  a  conference  m  the  spring  of  1663;  and, 

with  a  view  "to  the  lessening  the  great  quantities  now  made 

which  glutts  all  marketts,''  they  agreed  to  propose  to  their 

respective  Assemblies  that  no  tobacco  should  be  planted  in 

either  colony  after  June  20  during  the  year  1664,  and  that 

this  restraint  should  be  in  effect  for  one  year  only,  unless 

the  Assembhes   should  decide   to   continue  it.^    Virginia 

passed  a  law  to  this  effect,^  but  the  Maryland  Assembly 

refused  to  confirm  the  agreement,  mainly  on  the  ground  that 

it  was  inequitable,  in  that,  if   tobacco  planting  should  be 

prohibited  after  the  same  date  in  both  colonies,  Virginia, 

with  its  more  moderate  climate,  would  bear  a  smaller  share 

of  the  burden  of  the  stint  than  her  northern  neighbor.^ 

^  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  369;  Va.  Mag.  XIX,  pp.  349,  350. 

2  C.  0.  1/17,  29.  According  to  Lord  Baltimore,  the  Maryland  commis- 
sioners proposed  a  total  cessation  of  planting  for  one  year,  but  the  Virginia 
commissioners  rejected  this  suggestion,  because  then  they  would  not  be 
able  to  give  the  stipulated  clothes,  tools,  and  other  necessaries  to  their  ser- 
vants whose  term  of  service  was  expiring,  and  because  during  the  year  of 
cessation  no  ships  would  come  from  England,  and,  as  a  result,  these  ships 
would  then  turn  to  a  new  course  of  trade.    C.  O.  1/21,  133. 

^  Hening  II,  p.  190. 

*  C.  0.  1/21,  133.    In  addition,  Maryland  claimed  that  tobacco  was 


It 


122 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Virginia  complained  to  England  of  Maryland's  failure  to 
ratify  this  agreement  and  sought  relief  there.     The  repre- 
sentatives of  the  two  interested  colonies,  as  well   as   the 
Farmers  of  the  Customs,  were  ordered  to  attend  a  hear- 
ing before  the  Privy  Council.^    As  the  Virgmia  spokesmen 
and  Lord  Baltimore  could  not  reach  a  mutually  satisfactory 
agreement,  the  Council's  colonial  Committee  reported  that 
in  their  opinion  the  proposal  for  a  limitation  of  the  crop 
was  "inconvenient  both  to  the  Planters  and  his  Majesties 
Customes  ;"2  but,  in  order  to  encourage  these  colonies  to 
apply  themselves  to  products  "which  may  be  of  more  Benefit 
then  Tobacco,''  they  recommended  that  all  hemp,  pitch,  or 
tar  imported  from  them  into  England  should  be  free  of  duties 
for  five  years.     This  report  was  approved,  and  the  necessary 
orders  were  issued.^    Lord  Baltimore's  positive  statement, 
that  the  bad  state  of  the  colonies  was  exaggerated,^  influenced 
the  Committee  in  reaching  this  decision,  but  the  fear  of 
the  Farmers  of  the  Customs  that  a  stint  would  diminish 
the  EngHsh  revenue  was  the  deciding  factor.    Thereafter 
England  opposed  a  direct  limitation  of  the  tobacco  crop, 
although  still  favoring  the  introduction  of  other  products 
which  in  time  would  indirectly  accomphsh  this. 

* 

her  sole  means  of  livelihood,  and  that  unless  the  same  restraint  were  laid 
on  the  West  Indies  their  output  would  increase. 

»  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  381. 

2  They  reported  to  the  same  effect  on  the  proposition  to  limit  the  time  for 
ships  to  return  to  England  from  these  colonies. 

'P.  C.  Register  Charles  II,  IV,  ff.  301-303;  C.  O.  1/18,  148;  P.  C. 
Cal.  I,  pp.  386-388 ;  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  pp.  73-75 ;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  852. 

*C.  O.  1/21,  133. 


i| 


'J 


^ 


\ 


VIRGINIA  AND   MARYLAND 


123 


At  the  time  of  the  Order  in  Council  of  1664,  events  were 
inevitably  leading  up  to  a  war  with  the  Dutch,  and  when 
this  actually  broke  out,  the  market  for  English  colonial 
tobacco  was  considerably  curtailed  and  fewer  EngHsh  ships 
came  to  the  colonies.    The  stock  of  tobacco  accumulated 
rapidly.i    According  to  Berkeley  and  the  Virginia  Council, 
more  was  growing  in  1666  than  would  be  carried  away  in 
three  years.^    In  this  dilemma,  Virginia,  Maryland,  and  also 
Carolina,  which  was  just  becoming  a  factor  in  the  tobacco 
trade,  made  an  agreement  not  to  plant  any  tobacco  for  one 
year,  commencing  February  i,  1667.2    The  Virginia  law  for 
putting  this  agreement  into  effect  stated  that  the  large  quan- 
tity produced  had  glutted  all  markets  and  had  lowered  the 
price,   and   that  the  enforced  cessation  would  enable  the 
planters  to  find  some  other  staples.*    These  expectations 
were,  however,  dashed  to  the  ground.     The  small  planters  in 
Maryland  protested  strenuously  against   the  measure  and 
made  their  objections  known  to  Lord  Baltimore,  who  dis- 
allowed the  Act  enforcmg  the  cessation  in  his  colony.^    As 

iQn  Feb.  12,  1667,  Secretary  Thomas  Ludwell  of  Virginia  wrote  to 
Clarendon  that,  as  few  ships  had  or  were  likely  to  come  from  England,  they 
feared  "that  those  great  quantities  of  tob°  now  vpon  our  hands  wiU  remaine 
soe,"  and  had  agreed  upon  a  cessation.  He  hoped  that  this  measure  would 
be  approved  of  in  England,  and  that  it  would  divert  Virginia  to  "making 
more  staple  comodityes  as  silke  flax  &c."  New  York  Hist.  Soc.  CoU. 
(1869),  pp.  160,  161.    Cf.  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1410. 

*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1241. 

^Ibid.  nos.  1211,  1222,  1250,  1306,  1450;  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  pp.  117, 
118, 139-144,  151-153. 

*  Hening  II,  pp.  224-226. 

^  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1325;  Mereness,  Maryland,  pp.  108,  109. 


ii 


JHW 


124 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Secretary  Ludwell  of  Virginia  wrote  to  Lord  Berkeley,  the 
Governor's  influential  brother,  'Lord  Baltimore  at  one  stroke 
lopped  their  present  and  future  hopes  of  the  benefit  of  a 
cessation.'  ^  Virginia  appealed  to  the  English  authorities,^ 
accusing  Baltimore  of  being  "an  obstructor  of  the  publique 
Good  of  those  Collonies."  ^  In  answer,  Baltimore  cited  as 
justification  for  his  act  the  Order  in  Council  of  1664 ;  and, 
after  a  hearing  and  full  debate,  and  also  again  a  consultation 
with  the  Farmers  of  the  Customs,  the  government  adhered 
to  its  decision  of  1664  that  such  a  cessation  would  be  dis- 
advantageous.* 

While  these  futile  attempts  were  being  made  to  secure 
a  limitation  of  the  tobacco  crop,  Virginia  was  actively  en- 
gaged in  trying  to  diversify  its  economic  life  by  introducing 
other  industries,  especially  the  cultivation  of  silk,  which 
had  already  been  unsuccessfully  tried  on  several  previous 
occasions.  In  1662,  a  Virginia  law  obliged  all  landholders 
to  plant  ten  mulberry  trees  for  every  one  hundred  acres, 
and  offered  generous  boimties  for  the  silk  that  was  made.^ 
At  the  same  time,  the  production  of  flax  was  encouraged 
and  premiums  were  offered  by  the  legislature  for  cloth  made 
from  it.^    Similarly  in  this  same  year,  boimties  were  offered 

*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1625 ;  Va.  Mag.  XIX,  p.  250.  Despite  the  great 
devastation  inflicted  on  Virginia  by  the  memorable  storm  of  1667,  which 
destroyed  a  large  portion  of  the  tobacco,  Ludwell  in  1668  again  offered 
arguments  in  favor  of  a  cessation  for  one  year.    C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1798. 

2  Ibid.  nos.  1505,  1509.  *C.  O.  1/21,  133. 

*  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  445,  446 ;  C  O.  1/21, 133. 
^  Hening  II,  p.  121.     See  also  p.  191. 

*  This  Act  stated  that  "the  incertaine  value  of  tobacco  the  unstaplenesse 
of  the  comodity  &  the  probability  of  its  planting  in  other  places"  threaten 


.,  i 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND 


^2$ 


for  ships  built  in  Virginia,^  and  the  exportation  of  wool,  hides, 
and  iron  was  forbidden.^  With  the  object  of  diversifying 
its  industries,  Virginia  likewise  exempted  vessels  wholly 
owned  in  the  colony  from  payment  of  the  export  duties  and 
castle  dues.^ 

At  the  outset,  great  results  were  anticipated  from  these 
industrial  experiments.  In  1663,  Governor  Berkeley  wrote 
to  the  Secretary  of  State  ^  that  Virginians  "in  mighty  num- 
bers will  shortly  bee  employed  in  perfecting  those  excellent 
Commodities  of  Hemp  and  fflax,  &  Silk,  which  this  Country 
is  most  capable  of,  and  now  the  Planters  are  most  indus- 
triously intent  on,  and  truly  (my  Lord)  the  Successe  has 
outgone  my  own  hopes."  He  complained,  however,  that 
the  English  merchants,  whatever  was  pretended,  did  not 
desire  them  to  stmt  their  crop,  and,  as  proof  of  this  assertion, 
he  rather  naively  stated  that  during  the  current  year  they 
had  generally  "given  us  greater  prices  for  our  Tobacco 
then  usually  they  did,  and  haue  sent  in  eight  shipps  at  least  • 
more  than  wee  are  able  to  fraygt."  ^    If  tobacco  brings  a  good 

it  with  riun,  and  that  the  increased  output  in  Virginia  had  already  glutted 
all  markets  and  had  lowered  its  price.    Hening  II,  pp.  120,  121. 
^  Ibid.  II,  p.  122. 

2  Ibid.  II,  p.  124.  Cf.  pp.  179,  185,  216.  In  1671,  this  law  was  repealed. 
Ibid.  II,  p.  287.  3  7^,^  n^  pp  J3^^  J25^  2^2. 

^  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  ff.  362  et  seq. 

^As  further  evidence  of  this  contention,  he  said  that,  although  the 
English  merchants  "knew  his  Maj^.^  and  your  Lordshipp  did  earnestly  desire 
wee  should  endeavour  to  plant  those  most  usefull  Commodities  of  Hempe 
and  fflax,"  yet  they  had  disregarded  his  frequent  requests  for  seed.  He 
added,  however,  that  Virginia  had  sown  some  four  hundred  bushels,  which 
would  furnish  them  with  seed  for  the  following  year. 


li 


-Amm 


126 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


price,  he  further  said,  Virginia  is  well,  but  she  would  be  even 
better  off  if  the  price"  were  low,  for  this  would  necessitate 
the  production  of  other  staples  after  "forty  yeares  promot- 
ing the  basest  and  fooUshest  vice  in  the  world.''  Berkeley 
himself  was  engaged  in  producing  flax,  hemp,  and  potash, 
and  expected  soon  to  send  to  England  a  cargo  of  these 
commodities  made  on  his  own  estate.  Having  in  view  the 
history  of  tobacco  and  sugar,  he,  however,  expressed  the 
hope  that  they  would  not  meet  the  fate  of  all  such  colonial 
products,  "to  fall  in  price  as  soon  as  they  are  made  by  the 
English."  1 

Two  years  later,  in  1665,  Secretary  Ludwell  wrote  to  Lord 
Arlington  that  they  had  made  a  satisfactory  start  in  pro- 
ducing silk,  flax,  potash,  and  EngHsh  grain,  and  that  they 
hoped  soon  to  make  great  quantities.  He  further  informed 
the  Secretary  of  State  that  they  had  built  several  small 
vessels  to  trade  with  their  neighbors,  and  expected  ere  long 
to  launch  such  as  could  cross  the  Atlantic.^  Berkeley 
likewise  continued  to  be  enthusiastic.  According  to  him, 
Virginia  had  made  great  and  unexpected  progress  in  silk ; 
and  he  predicted  that  its  production  would  double  every 
year  until  100,000  pounds  were  made,  because  they  had 
innumerable  mulberry  trees,  which  in  four  or  five  years 
would  come  to  their  "perfectest."  He  admitted,  however, 
that  their  efforts  to  produce  flax  had  been  unsuccessful  and 
that  he  himself  had  lost  £1000  in  this  venture.    This  failure 

1  At  this  time,  Berkeley  sent  to  England  a  ton  of  potash,  stating  that,  if 
it  yielded  a  good  price,  he  would  ship  200  tons  more  of  his  own  manufacture. 
Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  365.  2  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  975. 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND 


127 


i 


.i 


he  attributed  to  want  of  experienced  men,  and  suggested 
that  some  able  "flaxmen"  be  sent  to  Virginia  by  the  Eng- 
lish government.^ 

This  optimism  apparently  pervaded  the  enture  colony,  for 
in  1666  the  Assembly  repealed,  as  no  longer  necessary,  its 
laws  for  the  encouragement  of  ship-building  and  the  manu- 
facture of  silk  and  cloth,  and  also  that  making  the  planting 
of  mulberry  trees  obligatory.^  This  action  was,  however, 
decidedly  premature.  At  this  time  Virginia  proposed  to 
send  a  present  of  three  hundred  poimds  of  silk  to  Charles  II, 
but  when  ultimately,  in  1668,  it  reached  England,  the 
infant  industry  already  showed  alarming  signs  of  premature 
extinction.^    Accordingly,  in   1669,  the  Assembly  revived 

1  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1030.  See  also  Berkeley  to  Clarendon,  July  20, 
1666,  in  Bodleian,  Clarendon  MSS.  84,  ff.  230,  231. 

*  Hening  II,  p.  241.    See  also  Va.  Mag.  XVII,  pp.  227,  228. 

'  This  gift  of  silk  was  ordered  in  1666,  but  was  actually  sent  two  years 
later.  When  sending  these  "first  f mites  of  their  labours  in  that  kind,"  the 
colony  stated  that  they  hoped  that  the  King  would  be  induced  thereby  to 
send  them  men  "better  skilled  in  that  and  other  staple  comodityes,  for 
which  this  country  is  very  proper,"  so  that  in  short  time  they  may  "noe 
longer  depend  wholly  upon  tobacco,  to  the  ruine  of  this  collony  and  decay 
of  your  Majestes  customes."  At  the  same  time.  Governor  Berkeley  wrote 
to  Charles  II  that  "the  present  is  smal  of  it  selfe,  but  the  hopes  and  conse- 
quences of  this  excelente  commodity  may  be  hereafter  of  an  inestimable 
benefit  to  your  Ma  jestie's  kingdomes."  But  for  this,  as  well  as  for  flax  and 
hemp,  he  added,  "we  want  some  able  skilful  men  to  instruct  us."  When 
acknowledging  the  receipt  of  this  present,  Charles  II  said  he  intended  to 
have  it  made  up  for  his  own  use.  It  was  ordered  "to  be  wrought  into  bed 
furniture"  for  the  King.  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  1250,  1805,  1806,  1878; 
Bodleian,  Clarendon  MSS.  84,  ff.  230,  231 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  27 ;  Flem- 
ing MSS.  (H.M.C.  1890),  p.  60.  This,  however,  was  not  the  first  gift  of 
this  nature  to  Charles  II.  During  the  Interregnum,  and  also  during  the 
regime  of  the  original  proprietary  Company,  serious  attempts  had  been 


^1 


128 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


VIRGINU  AND  MARYLAND 


the  bounties  on  silk,  which  three  years  before  had  been 
deemed  no  longer  necessary.^  This  was,  however,  of  no  avail. 
Apart   from  all  other  considerations,   the  chief  initial 
obstacle  to  the  successful  production  of  silk  was  the  lack  of 
experienced  and  skilled  workmen.     In  1671,  Governor  Berke- 
ley wrote  that,  if  they  had  such  men  from  Sicily,  Naples,  or 
Marseilles,  "  in  ten  or  fifteen   yeares  we  might  make  and 
send  for  England  five  hundred  Bayles  Yearly  of  Silke."  2 
This  was  a  virtual  confession  of  failure  and,  as  these  experts 
were  not  forthcoming,  the  attempts  to  produce  silk  were 
abandoned.    Likewise  no  progress  was  made  in  introducing 
flax,  nor  had  the  colony's  policy  of  preferential  treatment  to 
its  own  shipping  as  yet  yielded  any  commensurate  results. 
In  1671,  Berkeley  reported  that  Virginia  had  never  at  any 
time  owned  more  than  two  small  vessels  of  not  over  twenty 
tons  each.3    Thus  the  attempts  to  diversify  the  colony's 
economic  life  had  again  come  to  naught.     Despite  all 

made  to  raise  silk  in  Virginia.  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  244,  418 ;  Bruce,  Eco- 
nomic History  I,  pp.  365-370.  In  1661,  Charles  II  received  from  Edward 
Digges,  the  chief  promoter  of  this  enterprise,  "a  verie  acceptable  Present 
of  Silke"  produced  in  Virginia,  which  he  ordered  made  into  a  garment  for 
himself.  The  King  expressed  delight  that  "soe  laudable  and  profittable  a 
Comoditie"  was  made  in  Virginia  and  hoped  that  by  its  increase  there  "our 
Subjects  shall  not  need  to  fetch  it  from  Persia,  but  may  trade,  and  bee 
Cloathed  with  those  Native  and  rich  Proceeds  of  our  own  Dominions." 
Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2543,  f.  22.  See  also  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS. 
II,  411,  f.  24. 

^  Hem'ng  II,  p.  272. 

2  C.  O.  1/26,  77;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  232;  Va.  Mag.  XX,  p.  17.  In 
1672,  Berkeley  repeated  his  request  for  such  skiUed  men.  C.  C.  1669-1674, 
p.  321. 

2  C.  O.  1/26,  77i;  Hening  II,  pp.  511-517. 


129 


' 


/ 


efforts,  the  planters  could  not  be  lured  away  from  tobacco, 
and  Virginia's  prosperity  remained  as  heretofore  contingent 
upon  the  fluctuating  price  of  that  commodity.^ 

In  1671,  the  population  of  Virginia  was  estimated  at  40,000, 
of  whom  only  2000  were  negroes.  Apart  from  raising  their 
own  food  supplies  and  attending  to  such  matters  as  could  best 
be  done  by  the  local  handicraftsmen,  the  chief  occupation 
of  the  inhabitants  was  the  production  of  tobacco  for  the 
European  markets.  Some  New  England  ketches  traded  to 
the  colony,  but  the  bulk  of  the  tobacco  was  exported  in  the 
ships  from  England  and  Ireland,  of  which  about  eighty  come 
yearly  to  Virginia.^  These  ships  brought  to  Virginia  com- 
modities of  all  sorts  and  kinds  —  wines,  brandies,  utensils, 
wearing  apparel,  silks,  linens,  and  woollens.^ 

Virginia's  history  during  the  first  decade  of  the  Restora- 
tion is  preeminently  an  account  of  these  unsuccessful  at- 
tempts to  curtail  the  size  of  the  tobacco  crop  and  to  intro- 
duce staple  commodities.  The  second  decade  is  dominated 
by  the  political  disturbances  cuhninating  in  Bacon's  rebel- 
lion.   Its  interest  is  thus  mainly  political,  but  as  the  move- 

1  At  this  time,  a  writer  stated  that  Virgim*a's  chief  commodity  was  to- 
bacco, but  that  it  would  be  well  if  other  products  were  introduced,  for 
"then  their  Tobacco  would  not  be  so  great  a  Drug  as  of  late  it  is,  insomuch 
that  the  Merchant  ofttimes  had  rather  lose  it,  then  to  pay  the  charges  and 
Duties  of  Freight,  Custome,  Excise,  &c."  Richard  Blome,  A  Description 
of  the  Island  of  Jamaica  (London,  1672),  pp.  146,  147. 

2  C.  O.  1/26,  77i;  Hening  II,  pp.  511-517. 

3  Richard  Blome,  op.  cit.  p.  148.  In  1683,  it  was  said  that  the  exports 
from  England  to  Virginia  consisted  of  linens  and  woollens,  naUs,  iron  tools, 
soap,  starch,  gunpowder,  shot,  wine,  liquors,  sugar,  spices,  etc.  The  Present 
State  of  England  (London,  1683),  IV,  p.  6^. 

(2) 


.  I    -f 


130 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


ment  had  deep  social  roots,  the  question  naturally  arises 
in  this  connection,  to  what  extent,  if  any,  was  this  unrest 
the  result  of  unsatisfactory  economic  conditions  created 
or  aggravated  by  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation. 

In  part,  the  troubles  in  Virginia  proceeded  from  the  lavish 
territorial  grants  made  by  the  Crown  to  courtiers.     In  1649, 
Charles  bestowed  upon  several  of  his  most  zealous  supporters 
that  portion  of  Virginia  between  the  Rappahannock  and 
Potomac  rivers,  known  as  the  Northern  Neck,  which  com- 
prised a  not  insignificant  fraction  of   the  then  accessible 
area  of  the  province.^    After  the  Restoration,  the  surviving 
patentees  sought  to  exercise  their  rights,  and  leased  the 
territory  for  a  number  of  years  to  Sir  Humphrey  Hooke  and 
two  others.     In  1662,  Charles  II  wrote  to  the  Governor  and 
Council  of  Virginia  that  it  was  not  the  intention  to  withdraw 
the  colony  from  their  care,  and  that  they  should  aid  the 
representatives  of  Hooke  and  his  associates  in  settling  the 
plantation  and  in  receiving  its  rents  and  profits.^     Berke- 
ley and  the    Coimcil,  however,  obstructed    the    execution 
of  this  grant  as  destructive  to  Virginia,  and  requested  its 
revocation.3    On  account  of  theu:  determined  opposition, 
it  could  not  be  enforced.     Five  years  later,  however,  this 
plan  was  revived,  and  in  order  to  facilitate  it,  those  inter- 
ested in  the  patent  of  1649  —  the  Earl  of  St.  Albans,  Lord 
Berkeley,  Sir  William  Moreton,  and  John  Tretheway  —  sur- 

1  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  22-24,  53 ;  Va.  Hist.  Register  m,  p.  183  ;  Blath- 
wayt,  Journal  II,  f.  403. 

2  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  391. 

3  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  S.  36I^  365;   C.  C.  1661-1668,  no. 
520. 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND 


131 


rendered  it,^  and,  in  return,  received  in  1669  a  fresh  grant. 
This  patent  of  1669  covered  the  same  area  as  did  its  prede- 
cessor, and  authorized  the  proprietors  to  exercise  within  their 
domain  political  rights  similar  to  those  enjoyed  by  the 
mediaeval  manorial  barons,  subject,  however,  to  the  general 
power  of  the  Virginia  Assembly  to  impose  taxes  and  to  make 
laws  for  the  colony  as  a  whole.^ 

This  patent  created  considerable  imrest  in  Virginia.  In 
1 67 1,  Secretary  Ludwell  wrote  to  Lord  Arlington  that  the 
clause  confirming  only  such  land  grants  within  the  Northern 
Neck  as  had  been  made  by  the  Governor  and  Council  prior 
to  September  29,  1661,^  ^breeds  infinite  discontents  and  may 
produce  sad  effects.'  He  added  that  he  had  'never  observed 
anything  so  much  move  the  people's  grief  or  passion, 
or  which  doth  more  put  a  stop  to  their  industry,  than 
their  uncertainty  whether  they  should  make  a  country  for 
the  King  or  other  Proprietors.'  He  also  stated  that  the 
agents  of  the  patentees  were  already  beginning  to  slight  the 
Virginia  authorities  'further  than  their  patent  warrants,' 
and  that  he  believed  their  design  was  'to  get  themselves 
freed  wholly  from  this  Government,'  which  would  ruin  the 
colony  and  render  it  incapable  of  defending  itself.* 

Heedless  of  this  protest,  in  1673,  Charles  II  further  granted 
to  the  Earl  of  Arlington  and  Lord  Culpeper  ^  all  of  Virginia 

*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  1508,  1 51 2. 

2  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  22-24.  For  the  royal  instructions  to  obey  this 
patent,  see  ibid.  p.  53.  3  cf.  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1513. 

*C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  234,  235;  Va.  Mag.  XX,  pp.  19-21. 

'  Hening  II,  pp.  427,  428,  519,  568-578 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  810.  This  patent 
is  erroneously  calendared  under  the  year  1672  in  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  334. 


132 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL   SYSTEM 


for  thirty-one  years  with  even  somewhat  more  extensive 
political  powers  than  had  been  conveyed  by  the  patent  of 
1669.1    In  addition,  these  grantees  received  the  right  to 
coUect  the  quit-rents,  whose  payment  had  hitherto  not  been 
enforced,  although  they  were  a  condition  of  aU  the  Virginia 
land  grants.    Alarmed  at  this  prospect,  and  fearing  that  the 
somewhat  vague  pohtical  powers  of  the  patentees  might  ulti- 
mately be  construed  so  as  to  reduce  Virginia  to  the  status  of 
a  proprietary  colony,  in  1674  the  Assembly  voted  to  petition 
the  King  and  to  send  representatives  to  England  to  further 
their  cause.2    To  the  existing  agent,  Francis  Moryson,  were 
added  Robert  Smith  and  Secretary  Ludwell,  and  a  heavy 
poll-tax  was  levied  to  meet  their  expenses.     After  protracted 
negotiations,  during  which  it  was  pointed  out  that  the 
King's  authority  in  Virginia  must  in  no  way  be  lessened, 
"  for  the  New  England  disease  is  very  catching,''  ^  jt  was 
decided  that  the  inhabitants  of  Virginia  should  "have  their 
imediate  dependance  upon  the  Crowne  of  England  under  the 
Jurisdiction  and  Rule  of  such  Governor  as  your  Majesty 
.  .  .  shaU  appoint."  '    In  other  words.  Lords  ArHngton  and 
Culpeper  surrendered  their  political  rights,  retaining  only  the 
quit-rents  and  escheats.^   Charles  II,  however,  soon  thereafter 
gave  his  royal  word  to  take  over  this  as  yet  only  prospective 
revenue  and  to  apply  it  to  the  public  uses  and  support  of 
Virginia;  6   and  ultimately,  in  1684,  this  was  efifected.^    In 

^  Cf.  C.  O.  1/34,  loi  and  102.         2  Hening  II,  pp.  311,  518-520. 
»  C.  O.  1/33,  108;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  152-153. 

*  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  636-63S.    Cf.  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  447. 

*  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  334.  6  p.  Q  Cal,  i^  p,  3jq^ 
^  See  ante,  Vol.  I,  pp.  195,  196. 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND 


^33 


so  far  as  the  patent  for  the  Northern  Neck  was  concerned, 

it  was  decided  in  1675  to  grant  a  charter  incorporating 

Virginia  for  the  sole  purpose  of  enabhng  it  "to  purchase  and 

reteyne"  the  rights  of  St.  Albans  and  the  other  patentees  of 

1669.1    The  political  unrest  and  the  subsequent  disturbances 

in  Virginia,^  however,  halted  this  movement,  and  ultimately 

the  plan  of  giving  a  charter  to  the  colony  was  abandoned.^ 

To  a  considerable  extent  the  unrest  in  Virginia  was  due 

to  the  uncertainty  produced  by  these  ill-advised  grants  of 

Charles  II.    In  their  protest  against  them,  the  agents   of 

Virginia  stated  in  1675  that,  though  they  paid  more  customs 

in  England  than  any  other  colony,  they  had  been  "averwell 

satisfied  with  theire  Condicon''  until  the  issue  of  the  patent 

of  1669,  which  was  extremely  prejudicial,  and  when  this 

was  followed  by  the  more  extensive  grant  of  1673,  "to  their 

unspeakable  greife  and  Astonishment,"  they  saw  themselves 

reduced  to  a   condition   far  worse   than  that  which  had 

1  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  636-638.     Cf.  ibid.  pp.  629,  630 ;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp. 

248,  249,  302. 

2  The  Order  in  Coundl  ordering  the  issue  of  the  charter  was  dated 
November  19,  1675,  but  the  first  news  of  the  actual  disturbances  preceding 
the  rebellion  reached  England  in  June  of  1676.  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  636 ;  C.  C. 
1675-1676,  p.  386. 

'  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  376,  398,  447 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  661.  In  addition 
to  making  the  colony  a  corporation  so  as  to  enable  it  to  purchase  the  patent 
of  1669,  the  proposed  charter  would  in  addition  have  guaranteed  to  Vir- 
ginia certain  invaluable  rights  and  privileges,  such  as:  i,  immediate  de- 
pendence upon  the  Enghsh  Crown;  2,  freedom  from  taxation  except  with 
the  consent  of  the  Governor,  CouncH,  and  Burgesses;  3,  confirmation  of 
existing  land  dtles  and  the  abstention  of  the  Crown  from  future  grants 
prejudicial  to  the  colony ;  4,  confirmation  of  the  power  and  authority  of 
the  Grand  Assembly  of  the  colony.    Ibid.  pp.  636-638. 


1 ' 

I 

4 


'  I 


134 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


prevailed  under  the  original  colonizing  Company.^     Other 
factors  were,  however,  even  more  disturbing.    The  system 
of  government  in  Virginia  after  the  Restoration  had  gradu- 
ally become  a  close  oligarchy.     PoUtical  power  was  to  a 
great  extent  in  the  hands  of  the  Governor  and  of  the  large 
planters,  who  composed  the  Council  and  divided  all  pub- 
lic  offices    among  themselves  and   their   associates.     The 
Assembly  was  an  impotent  body,  subservient  to  the  wishes 
of  the  Governor  and  Council,  and  no  longer  adequately 
represented  the  colony's  wishes.    The  burgesses  had  been 
chosen  by  universal  suffrage  in  1661,  during  the  flood-tide 
of   the   royalist   reaction;   and,   although   conditions   had 
greatly   altered  since  then,  this  Assembly  had  been  kept 
alive  by  adjournments  and  prorogations.     Its  life  all  but 
paralleled  in  duration  that  of  the  "Cavalier  Parliament" 
in  England,  and  both  bodies  in  time  equally  misrepresented 
the  true  sentiments  of  their  respective  communities. 

At   the   head,   and   in   full   command   of   this   political 
oligarchy,  which  virtually  completely  controlled   the    col- 
ony, was   the  Governor,  Sir  William  Berkeley.     Of  excel- 
lent family  and  of  considerable  scholarly  attainments  —  his 
drama,  "The  Lost  Lady,''  found  some  favor  with  Pepys  2  — 
Berkeley  had  for  a  long  time  proved  himself  an  efficient 
administrator  and  energetic  pubHc  servant.     He  had  been 
closely  identified  with  Virginia  ever  since  1641,  when  first 
he  was  appointed  Governor,  was  largely  interested  in  local 
enterprises,  and  had  in  time  become  more  Virginian  than 
EngHsh.    He  was  an  even  more  outspoken  champion  of  his 

1  C.  0.  1/34,  loi  and  102.  2  Pepys,  Jan.  19,  28,  1661. 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND  135 

colony's  interests  than  was  Lord  WiUoughby  in  Barbados. 
But  Berkeley  was  conservative  to  the  core,  and  was  opposed 
to  the  spread  of  popular  education  and  of  democratic  ideas. 
During  his  regime,  in  1670,  the  suffrage  was  hmited  to 
freeholders.     This  measure  was  designed  to  perpetuate  the 
control  of  the  large  landowners^  whenever  the  necessity 
should  arise  for  dissolving  the  Assembly  of  1661  and  caUing 
a  new  one.     Steps  were  also  taken  to  maintain  secure  the 
power  of  this  class  in  the  parish,  which  was  the  most  im- 
portant institution  of  local  government  in  Virginia.     The 
authority  of  the  parish  was  exercised  by  the  vestrymen, 
who  had  been  popularly  chosen,  but  in  1662  a  Virginia  law 
provided  that  in  future  aH  vacancies  in  these  boards  should 
be  filled  by  the  remaining  members.^ 

While  this  oligarchy  was  consoHdating  its  power,  the  area  of 
settlement  was  slowly  encroaching  on  the  wilderness.     The 
settlers  in  these  new  counties  embodied  the  frontier  spirit, 
which  played  so  prominent  a  part  in  the  relations  of  Eng- 
land and  America  during  the  old  Empire  and  which  was  one 
of  the  fundamental  factors  in  shaping  the  history  of  the 
United  States.    The  individuahsm  of  the  frontiersman,  his 
contempt  for  the  forms  and  processes  of  orderly  govern- 
ment, since  they  were  of  httle  avail  on  the  unsettled  border 
where  self-help  constituted  the  best  chance  for  survival, 
marked  a  cleavage  tending  to  separate  this  region  from  the 
older  tide-water  counties.     Moreover,  in  the  cradle  of  the 
"  Old  Dominion  "  itself  there  had  grown  up  a  new  generation, 

»  G.  E.  Howard,  Local  Constitutional  History  of  United  States  I   dd 
1 1 7-1 20.  '  ^^' 


136 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


» 

which  resented  its  exclusion  from  political  power.  Thus 
developed  throughout  the  entire  colony  considerable  oppo- 
sition to  the  existing  system  of  government.  At  the  same 
time,  with  increasing  age  and  long  tenure  of  undisputed 
power,  the  Governor  had  become  ever  more  autocratic  and 
arrogant,  and  resented  any  infringement  of  his  absolute 
authority. 

Among  the  specific  complaints  against  the  ruling  oligarchy 
were  the  unnecessarily  frequent  sessions  of  the  Assembly, 
which  were  found  burdensome  as  the  burgesses  were  paid, 
and  the  heavy  and  unequal  taxes.  In  especial,  complaint 
was  made  against  the  poll-tax,  which  was  raised  to  defray 
the  expenses  of  the  agents  in  securing  the  abrogation  of  the 
Arlington-Culpeper  grant  of  1673.  The  poor  man  paid  as 
much  as  he  that  had  twenty  thousand  acres,  wrote  Giles 
Bland.^  Moreover,  the  members  of  the  Council  were  ex- 
empt from  taxation.  In  addition,  there  was  a  widespread 
suspicion  that  the  colony's  revenue  was  used  for  other  than 
public  purposes  and  that  the  officials  were  taking  advantage 
of  their  positions  to  further  their  own  private  ends.^  In  the 
years  1673  to  1675  the  discontent  with  these  conditions  had 

*  Bland  also  said  that  'the  charge  of  two  burgesses  is  500  lbs.  of  tobacco 
daily  to  each  county,  though  many  of  the  counties  are  so  small  that  they 
have  not  500  tithables  in  them.'    C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  386. 

2  In  1672,  Nicholas  Spencer  wrote  from  Virginia  to  his  brother  that,  by  the 
favor  of  Governor  Berkeley,  he  was  collector  of  the  colony's  export  duties 
in  the  Lower  Potomac  District,  and  that  he  would  Uke  this  position  con- 
firmed by  letters  patent,  as  Berkeley  was  aged  and  might  die  soon,  and  as 
his  successor  would  probably  bestow  such  places  on  the  highest  bidders. 
He  added  sigm'ficantly  that,  while  the  salary  was  not  of  much  account,  the 
office  gave  him  many  advantages.    Brit.  Mus.,  Sloane  MSS.  351 1,  f.  134. 


VIRGINLV  AND  MARYLAND  137 

led  to  some  disturbances,  but  these  had  been  easily  quelled  ;^ 
and  it  is  doubtful  if  any  fundamental  commotion  would  have 
occurred  had  not  the  Indian  situation  demonstrated  the  in- 
competence of  the  oligarchic  poKtical  machine.     In  another 
connection,  a  distinguished  publicist  has  well  said:  "An 
exclusive  government  may  be  pardoned  if  it  is  efficient,  an 
inefficient  government  if  it  rests  upon  the  people.    But  a 
government  which  is  both  inefficient  and  exclusive  incurs 
a  weight  of  odium  under  which  it  must  ultimately  sink."  ^ 
In  1675,  some  minor  difficulties  were  encountered  with  the 
Indians  on  the  northern  frontier,  during  the  course  of  which 
some  Susquehannas  were  im justly  executed  by  the  colonials. 
In  retaliation  for  this  action,  this  tribe  and  its  allies  attacked 
the  plantations  in  the  Northern  Neck  and  elsewhere,  caus- 
ing considerable  loss  of  life  and  property.    Berkeley  took 
no  effective  steps  to  cope  with  this  serious  situation,  and 
answered  the  petitions  of  the  distressed  settlers  by  bidding 
them  await  the  action  of  the  Assembly,  which  was  to  recon- 
vene only  in  March  of  1676.     The  measures  then  adopted  by 
the  burgesses  were,  however,  equally  futile,  and  accordingly 
the  planters  in  some  of  the   affected  counties  organized 
for  self-defence  against  the  Indians.     They  found  an  able 
leader  in  Nathaniel  Bacon,  who,  though  but  a  recent  arrival 
in  the  colony,  had  as  a  result  of  his  prominent  family  con- 
nections already  been  made  a  member  of  the  Council.    At 
the  head  of  a  small  force.  Bacon  was  signally  successful 

1  William  &  Mary  CoU.  Quart.  HI,  pp.  123-125;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp. 
366,  368. 

'  James  Bryce,  Impressions  of  South  Africa  (New  York,  1900),  p.  xix. 


ii 


138 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


against  the  Indians.  In  the  meanwhile,  Governor  Berkeley, 
irritated  at  such  independence  of  conduct,  had  in  vain  tried 
to  recall  Bacon  from  this  expedition,  and,  as  no  heed  was  paid 
to  these  commands,  dubbed  him  a  rebel,  suspended  him  from 
his  public  oflSces,  and  made  an  ineffectual  attempt  to  arrest 
him.  Public  opinion  naturally  favored  the  successful  Indian 
fighter,  and  when  in  this  emergency  Berkeley,  unwisely  from 
his  standpoint,  dissolved  the  old  Assembly  and  called  a  new 
one,  it  was  filled  with  supporters  of  Bacon,  who  himself 
was  returned  from  Henrico,  one  of  the  upper  counties. 

Bacon  was,  however,  not  to  sit  with  the  burgesses,  for  a 
somewhat  perfimctory  reconciliation  between  him  and  the 

^stored  to  his  seat  in 
ly  passed  various  reform 
measures,  annulling  the  restrictions  on  the  suffrage,  restoring 
the  open  vestry,  and  repealing  the  exemption  of  councillors 
from  taxation.  In  addition,  provision  was  made  for  raising 
an  effective  military  force  for  operations  against  the  Indians, 
and  Bacon  was  designated  as  its  commander.  Berkeley, 
however,  delayed  issuing  the  commission  so  long  that 
Bacon's  mistrust  was  aroused.  Accordingly,  Bacon  with- 
drew from  Jamestown,  and,  returning  with  a  considerable 
body  of  armed  supporters,  demanded  his  commission  from 
the  Governor.  Against  this  show  of  force,  Berkeley  was  help- 
less, and,  short  of  surrendering  his  office,  he  had  no  choice 
but  to  give  Bacon  full  military  authority.  The  reforming 
Assembly  was  then  dissolved,  and  while  Bacon  was  effectively 
restoring  peace  on  the  frontier,  the  Governor,  smarting  in 
his  humihation,  again  proclaimed  him  a  rebel  and  traitor. 


VIRGINLV    AND  MARYLAND 


139 


Berkeley's  efforts  to  raise  a  military  force  in  tide-water 
Virginia  were,  however,  unsuccessful,  for  even  in  these  older 
counties  there  was  no  desire  to  enlist  against  so  energetic  a 
defender  of  the  colony  as  was  Bacon. 

By  his  actions  Bacon  had  placed  himself  in  open  hostility 
and  in  plain  rebeUion  to  the  estabhshed  government  of  the 
province,  and,  as  its  authority  was  derived  from  the  Crown, 
he  was  forced  by  the  logic  of  events,  whatever  may  have  been 
his  original  intentions,  into  contemplating  the  possibility  of 
disobeying  the  direct  commands  of  the  imperial  government 
and  of  opposing  any  troops  sent  from  England  to  secure  their 
enforcement.    Apparently  his  impetuous  nature  was  not 
deterred  by  this  prospect,  nor  even  by  the  possibihty  of 
political  separation  from  England,  but  before  anything  of  this 
nature  had  crystallized,  in  the  faU  of  1676,  while  the  entire 
colony  was  at  his  mercy  and  the  Governor  was  a  virtual 
fugitive,  a  sudden  iUness  extinguished  his  meteoric  career. 
With  his  removal,  the  entire  movement  speedily  collapsed. 
Berkeley  recovered  his  authority,  and  vindictively  used  it  to 
rush  to  the  gaUows  nearly  two  score  of  the  Baconians,  besides 
punishing  others  with  undue  severity.     Charles  II  had  not 
exacted  so  severe  a  punishment  for  his  father's  execution  at 
WhitehaU  and  the  privations  endured  during  his  own  decade 
of  exile.     Moreover,  the  new  Assembly  that  was  elected 
during  this  reaction  undid  in  part  the  reform  work  of  its 
predecessor.^ 

1  The  best  narratives  of  these  crowded  events  are  to  be  found  in  Osgood 
^e  American  Colonies  III,  pp.  258-279,  and  in  Fiske,  Old  Virginia  and  He.' 
Neighbours  II,  pp.  58-95. 


m 


.  I 


I40 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Throughout  the  summer  of  1676  news  of  the  discontent 
and  disturbances  in  Virginia  was  being  received  in  England.^ 
As  the  movement  progressed  the  necessity  for  action  be- 
came ever  more  apparent.  Various  steps  were  proposed, 
and  finally  it  was  decided  to  recall  Berkeley,  as  his  age  and 
infirmities  unfitted  him  for  so  weighty  a  charge,  but,  out  of 
consideration  for  'his  long,  faithful,  and  successful  services,' 
he  was  not  deprived  of  the  title  and  dignity  of  Governor.^ 
At  the  same  time,  three  commissioners  —  Herbert  Jeffreys, 
Sir  John  Berry,  and  Francis  Moryson  —  with  one  thousand 
soldiers,  were  sent  to  the  colony  to  restore  peace  and  to  in- 
quire into  the  causes  of  the  disturbances.'  Jeffreys  was  also 
appointed  Lieutenant-Governor  of  the  colony,  with  instruc- 
tions to  take  charge  of  its  administration  after  Berkeley's  de- 
parture for  England."*  These  three  men  were  of  such  char- 
acter as  to  inspire  confidence  in  their  findings.  Moryson 
had  for  a  considerable  time  been  Virginia's  faithful  agent  in 
England.  Berry  was  a  distinguished  naval  officer,^  .who 
had  just  shown  his  open-minded  impartiaHty  by  vigorously 
defending  the  Newfoundland  settlers  against  the  false 
charges  of  the  English  fishermen.^    Moryson  was  highly 

'  GUes  Bland's  account  of  the  unrest,  dated  April  28,  was  received  in 
June.    C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  386.    See  also  pp.  401,  412,  413,  426. 

*  Ibid.  p.  449. 

8  Ibid.  pp.  455,  457-461. 

*  Ibid,  pp.  485,  486;  Va.  Mag.  XIV,  pp.  356-359. 

^  He  was  "a  'tarpaulin'  oflScer  who  had  worked  his  way  up  from  the 
forecastle  by  sheer  merit  and  hard  fighting."  Corbett,  England  in  the 
Mediterranean  II,  p.  134. 

«  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  259-261,  275,  276,  316,  317,  329,  330,  439,  507; 
C.  C.  1699,  PP-  601,  602.    See  also  post,  Chapter  IX. 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND  141 

pleased  with  his  coUeagues ;  a  fitter  person  than  Jeffreys, 
he  said,  could  not  have  been  found,  and  Berry,  according 
to  him,  was  'of  unbiassed  principles,  prudent  conduct,  and 
unwearied  industry  for  the  service.'  ^ 

When,  early  in  1677,  these  Commissioners  arrived  in  Vir- 
ginia, the  rebellion  was  over,  and  Berkeley  was  in  the  midst 
of  his  insensate  measures  of  retahation.    There  was   vir- 
tuaUy  nothing  for  the  soldiers  to  do,  and  but  Uttle  for  the 
Commissioners  beyond  stopping  Berkeley's  excesses  and  in- 
ducmg  him  to  leave  for  Europe.^    After  some  delay  this 
was  effected,  but  as  Berkeley  died  in  the  early  summer  of 
1677,  shortly  after  his  arrival  in  England,  no  investigation 
of  his  conduct  was  made  there.^    Two  years  before,  the 
reversion  of  this  place  had  been  granted  to  Lord  Culpeper,^ 
and  accordingly  on  Berkeley's  death  he  took  the  oaths  of 
office  as  Governor  of  Virginia.^    As  Culpeper  was,  however, 
exceedingly  averse  from  leaving  the  congenial  atmosphere 
of  London,  the  administration  remained  in  the  hands  of 
Lieutenant-Governor  Jeffreys.    His  associates.  Berry  and 
Moryson,  had  returned  to  England  during  the  summer  of 
1677,  and  at  the  same  time  the  bulk  of  the  troops  sent  to 
Virginia  were  also  withdrawn.® 
Before  their  departure,  Beriy  and  Moryson,  together  with 

^  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  42. 
^  Cf.  Va.  Mag.  XIV,  p.  272. 
'  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  106,  138. 

*  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  247;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  107;   Va.  Mag.  XIV.  dd 
197,  198.  '  ^^' 

^  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  107,  131,  142,  143. 
« Ibid.  pp.  8s,  163. 


I 


142 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Jeffreys,  established  Indian  relations  on  a  firm  and  rational 
basis.  ^  In  addition,  in  pursuance  of  their  instructions,^  the 
Commissioners  made  elaborate  and  careful  inquiries  into 
the  causes  of  the  disturbances  of  the  preceding  year.^  The 
various  counties  were  instructed  to  state  their  complaints,  if 
any,  and  thus  there  are  available  in  all  reports  from  seven- 
teen counties  and  two  parishes,  which  included  nearly  the 
entire  colony.^  In  these  statements  of  grievances  there  is  a 
substantial  unanimity  as  to  the  causes  of  the  troubles.  Great 
stress  was  laid  on  the  inadequacy  of  the  measures  adopted 
by  Berkeley  to  cope  with  the  Indian  peril.  Similarly,  there 
was  almost  a  imiversal  complaint  that  the  taxes  were  exces- 
sive and  unequal,  and  that  the  revenue  was  diverted  from 
the  purposes  for  which  it  had  been  intended.  In  the  opin- 
ion of  James  City  County,  which  was  concurred  in  by  nearly 
all  the  others,  the  late  Indian  trouble,  together  with  the  pay- 
ment for  two  years  of  the  heavy  poll-tax,  were  "  the  greate 
Causes  of  these  rebellions  &  CiviU  Comotions  in  this  poor 
Country."  ^  Gloucester  County  also  stated  that  "this  Tax 
occasioned  the  first  Discontents  among  the  People."  ® 

*  Va.  Mag.  XIV,  pp.  289-296.    C/.  Osgood,  op.  cit.  Ill,  pp.  288,  289. 
2  Va.  Mag.  XIV,  p.  273.  3  j^^  p  278. 

*  These  reports  are  in  C.  O.  1/39,  nos.  58-100.  Some  have  been  printed 
in  the  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  and  a  very  summary 
abstract  is  given  in  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  44-50.  ^  C.  O.  1/39,  58. 

*  Ibid.  94.  On  April  i,  1676,  Governor  Berkeley  wrote  to  Thomas 
Ludwell:  "Here  are  divers  that  would  faine  perswade  the  People  that  al 
their  High  Taxes  wil  bring  them  no  benefit  so  that  if  the  most  advantageous 
termes  had  been  proposed  to  us  it  had  beene  impossible  to  have  perswaded 
the  people  to  have  parted  with  more  Tobb.  til  a  more  certaine  demonstration 
had  been  given  them  of  what  is  already  donne      I  appeasd  two  mutim'es 


i 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND 


143 


Despite  this  general  agreement,  it  has  at  various  times 
been  contended  that  the  uprising  was,  in  part  at  least,  one 
against  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation.^  If  there  had 
existed  in  Virginia  any  widespread  and  well-defined  feeling 
of  antagonism  to  these  laws,  it  would  unquestionably  have 
found  expression  in  these  statements  of  grievances.  Most 
of  these  reports  were  drawn  up  in  a  number  of  articles, 
and  in  all  there  were  nearly  two  hundred  of  such  separate 
subdivisions,  yet  only  three  of  this  large  number  of  com- 
plaints refer  in  any  way  to  these  statutes.  Moreover,  no 
one  of  these  three  articles  attacks  England's  poUcy  in  its 
entirety,  but  only  some  one  specific  and  minor  phase  of  it. 
No  reference  at  all  was  made  to  the  enumeration  of  tobacco, 
which  was  the  most  vital  point. 

The  second  of  York  County's  twelve  grievances  ^  was  a 
request  for  permission  "to  transport  wheate,  any  Comodity 
of  this  Countrey's  produce  (except  Tobacco)  to  the  Azores 
and  Canary  Islands,  to  retume  w*^  any  Comodities  of  the 
produce  of  those  Islands,  as  alsoe  the  Liberty  that  is  granted 
to  New  England,  Newfoundland  to  fetch  Salt  from  any  port 
in  Europe  by  the  Shipping  that  Solely  belongs  to  the  Inhabit' 

this  last  yeare  raysed  by  some  secret  villaines  that  wisperd  amongst  the 
People  that  there  was  nothing  entended  by  the  fifty  pound  leavy  but  the 
enriching  of  some  few  people.  But  this  yeare  it  has  beene  cherf ully  payde  by 
every  one  thoughe  the  necessity  of  a  new  tax  is  layde  uppon  us  for  the 
Indians  are  Generally  combined  against  us."    Va.  Mag.  XX,  pp.  246,  247. 

1  This  contention  was  first  made  by  Robert  Beverley,  Virginia's  eigh- 
teenth-century historian.  His  statement  has  been  accepted  by  Philip  A. 
Bruce  (Econ.  Hist.  I,  p.  359)  and  has  been  given  considerable  extension  by 
John  Fiske  (Old  Virginia  and  Her  Neighbours  II,  pp.  96,  97). 

2  C.  O.  1/39,  92. 


H 


11 


;fr 


i-.i 


144 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


of  this  his  Ma^f  Country."    Under  the  law  as  it  stood, 
Virginia  could  export  aU  her  produce,  except  tobacco,  to  any 
market,  and  could  import  wines  directly  from  the  Madeiras 
and  Azores.    There  was  some  doubt  whether  such  importa- 
tions could  lawfuUy  be  made  directly  from  the  Canaries. 
Thus  the  request  narrowed  itself  down  to  one  for  permis- 
sion to  import  salt  directly  from  Europe  in  Virginia  ships, 
and  for  a  somewhat  greater  extension  of  the  trade  already 
aUowed  from  the  Portuguese  wine  islands,  as  weU  as  the 
inclusion   of   the   Canaries  within   this  privileged  group. 
The  proposal  was  far  from  revolutionary,  and  it  is  not 
surprising  that   the   Commissioners  repUed  that  in  their 
opinion  it  was  worthy  of  the  consideration  of  the  Lords  of 
Trade. 

Then,  Lower  Norfolk  County  requested  permission  to 
export  tobacco  to  the  other  English  colonies  without  paying 
the  one-penny  duty  imposed  by  the  Act  of  1673,  which  they 
claimed  had  discouraged  aU  adventurers.^    Similarly  among 
the  fourteen  complaints  2  registered  by  a  part  of  Citternbom 
parish  in  Rappahannock  County,'  it  was  also  claimed  that 
this  duty  was  injurious  and  had  ahnost  ruined  them,  because 
it  kept  the  New  England  traders  away  and  thus  deprived 
Virginia  of  its  supply  of  corn  and  other  necessaries,  which 
"wee  are  at  a  Cheaper  rate  suppH'd  w*^"  thence.    In  reply, 
the  Commissioners  stated  that  "the  penny  impost  being 
lay'd  by  Act  of  Pariiam'  &  y«  onely  way  to  keepe  y^  New 
Eng^  men  from  defrauding  His  Ma^^  of  his  Customes,*being 
a  most  necessary  Imposicion,  is  not  to  be  complain'd  but  to 

1  C.  0.  1/39,  95.  *  lUd.  62.  3  This  is  now  Essex  County. 


i 


t 


VIRGINU  AND  MARYLAND  145 

be  executed."    They  further  added,  and  unquestionably 
correctly  so,  that  the  aUegation  about  the  trade  with  New 
England  was  "utterly  false."    The  severe  Indian  conflict 
in  the  northern  colonies,  known  as  King  Phihp's  War, 
had  seriously  interfered  with  the  crops  there,  and  as  a  re- 
sult these  colonies  had  no  surplus  for  "export.     On  account 
of  the  prevailing  scarcity,  Massachusetts  in  1675  suspended 
its  law  prohibiting  the  importation  of  wheat,  biscuit,  and 
flour,  and  forbade  the  exportation  of  all  provisions,  except 
fish  and  such  as  were  needed  to  supply  the  trading  ships.^ 
Not  only  did  Barbados  suffer  from   the  ensumg  lack  of 
supplies,^  but  it  was  also  felt  in  Virginia  and  Maryland, 
where  poor  crops  further  aggravated  the  difficulties  of  the 
situation.3    Instead  of  bringing  food- stuffs  to  Virginia,  the 
New  England  traders  tried  to  secure  grain  there  and  so 
alarmed  the  Virginia  authorities  that  they  were  "forced  to 
promulgate  a  severe  law  that  no  more  provisions  shal  be 
exported."  4    However  effective  the    one-penny   duty    of 

1  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  V,  p.  65. 

j  In  1675,  Governor  Atkins  wrote  that  the  scarcity  of  provisions  in  Bar- 
bados was  due  to  the  embargo  laid  in  New  England  in  consequence  of  the 
Indian  war.     C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  288,  289,  294,  295,  301,  302. 

In  1675  and  1676,  mainly  on  account  of  unfavorable  weather  there  was 
a  great  scarcity  of  corn  in  Virginia  and  Maryland  and,  in  addition  the 
tobacco  crop  was  poor  and  scanty.  In  partial  compensation,  the  price  of 
tobacco  was  high.  In  1675,  a  vessel  from  Maryland  reported  in  England 
that  tobacco  was  scarce  and  worth  threepence  a  pound.  A  year  later 
tobacco  sold  in  Virginia  at  fifteen  shillings  the  hundredweight.  Cal.  Dom' 
1675-1676,  pp.  5,  81,  85,  134,  141,  154,  342;  ibid.  1676-1677,  pp.  74,  216  * 
Va.  Mag.  XX,  p.  247 ;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  366.  See  also  C.  C.  1675- 
1676  pp.  314,  315,  350  J  Cal.  Dom.  1675-1676,  p.  342;  ibid.  1676-1677 
p.  216.  ' '* 

L 

(2) 


'iU* 


J 


y 


146 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


1673  may  have  been  in  preventing  the  evasion  of  the 
enumeration  clauses  by  the  New  England  traders,  it 
certainly  was  only  a  most  insignificant,  if  not  a  wholly 
negligible,  factor  in  producing  the  scarcity  of  provisions 
that  prevailed  at  this  time  in  Virginia.^ 

Of  these  three  complaints,  two  came  from  tide-water 
counties,  York  and  Lower  Norfolk.  One  originated  in 
a  parish  in  one  of  the  upper  coimties,  Rappahannock,  but 
the  report  from  this  coimty  as  a  whole  did  not  mention  this 
grievance.  As  to  a  certam  extent  Bacon's  rebellion  was  a 
civil  conflict  between  these  two  divisions  of  Virginia,  the 
assumption  that  the  Navigation  Acts  were  a  potent  factor 
in  causing  the  outbreak  would  lead  to  the  incongruous  con- 
clusion that  the  tide-water  counties,  which  more  than  the 
others  objected  to  this  phase  of  England's  colonial  poHcy, 
opposed  a  movement  springing  from  this  very  same  feehng. 
As  has  already  been  explained,  there  was  inevitably  some 
opposition  in  Virginia  to  the  restrictive  phases  of  the  colonial 
system.    This  attitude  was  not  confined  to  one  section,  but 

1  On  AprU  i,  1676,  Berkeley  wrote  to  Ludwell:  "I  thinke  al  consider- 
ing men  conclude  that  one  yeares  want  of  provision  does  impoverish  king- 
domes  and  states  (of  all  natures)  more  than  seaven  yeares  Luxury  but  this 
is  not  halfe  the  New-England  mens  misery  for  they  have  lost  al  their  Beaver 
trade  Halfe  at  least  of  their  fishing  and  have  nothing  to  cary  to  the  Bar- 
badoes  with  whose  comodities  they  were  wont  to  cary  away  our  Tobb : 
and  other  provisions  Add  to  this  the  new  tax  of  one  penny  per  pound  on 
Tobb  w'ch  my  Officers  rigorously  exact  of  them  to  conclude  this  if  this 
warr  lasts  one  Yeare  longer  they  in  new  England  will  be  the  poorest  miser- 
ablest  People  of  al  the  Plantations  of  the  English  in  America  Indeed  I 
should  Pitty  them  had  they  deservd  it  of  the  King  or  his  Blessed  father." 
Va.  Mag.  XX,  pp.  247,  248. 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND 


147 


it  was  naturally  more  pronounced  in  the  older  counties  and 
among  the  richer  planters,  who  in  general  sided  with  Berkeley 
against  Bacon.    Moreover,  the  Governor  hunself  was  the 
most  vehement  opponent  of  these  laws.    Thus  there  is  no 
valid  reason  for  assuming  that  the  commercial  system  played 
any  part  whatsoever,  or  was  to  any  degree  an  issue,  in  the 
upheaval  of  1676.    The  assumption  that  it  was  a  funda- 
mental factor  is  entirely  gratuitous  and  rests  on  no  solid 
basis,  either  documentary  or  mferential.     Like  many  other 
untenable  hypotheses,  it  proceeds  from  the  dangerous  and 
well-nigh  incurable  tendency  to  infer  subjectively  that, 
because  men  of  the  present   day  would  have  found   a 
system  insufferably  restrictive,   their  predecessors,  living 
several  hundred  years  before  under  radically  different  so- 
cial and  intellectual  conditions,  must  necessarily  also  have 

done  so. 

During  the  disturbed  conditions  leading  up  to  Bacon's 
rebellion  and  until  the  final  pacification  of  the  colony,  natu- 
rally no  further  attempts  were  made  to  diversify  its  prod- 
ucts or  to  curtail  the  tobacco  crop.^  The  price  of  tobacco 
was  apparently  satisfactory  to  the  planter,  for  complaints 
about  it  were  conspicuously  absent.  Among  the  grievances 
enumerated  by  James  City  County  in  1677  was  that  tobacco 

1  A  Virginia  law  of  1673  stated  that  "forasmuch  as  it  much  conduceth 
to  the  well  being  of  any  country  that  the  necessities  thereof  be  supplyed 
from  their  owne  industry  within  themselves,"  because  then  there  wiU  be 
less  dependence  on  foreign  suppUes,  and  whereas  "the  low  and  contemptable 
price"  allowed  for  tobacco  is  "occasioned  cheifely  by  the  greate  quantityes 
yearely  made,"  therefore  it  is  advisable  to  make  seed  and  flax.  The  dis- 
tribution of  seed  was  accordingly  ordered  and  its  cultivation  was  made 
obhgatory.    Hening  II,  p.  306. 


I 


II 


)l 


IN 


148 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


deKvered  in  payment  of  the  unpopular  poll-tax  was  rated  at 
only  eight  shillings  the  hundredweight,  although  commonly 
sold  at  twice  this  figure.^  At  this  price,  nearly  twopence 
a  pound,  the  production  of  tobacco  was  very  remunerative. 
But  during  this  decade,  the  population  had  increased  very 
rapidly,  and  with  it  the  quantity  of  tobacco  planted.  In 
1671,  Berkeley  estimated  the  number  of  inhabitants  at 
40,000,2  while  ten  years  later  Culpeper  placed  it  at  70,000 
to  80,000,  of  whom  15,000  were  indentured  servants  and 
3000  negro  slaves.^  In  addition,  the  high  prices  prevailing 
from  1675  to  1677  had  stimulated  production.  The  market 
for  tobacco  was  expanding  much  more  slowly,  and  as  a  result, 
in  1680,  occurred  one  of  those  periodical  crises  in  the  in- 
dustry when  the  price  sank  so  low  that  the  planter  was 
completely  disheartened. 

On  July  9, 1680,^  the  Virginia  Secretary,  Nicholas  Spencer, 
wrote  to  Secretary  Coventry,  forwarding  an  address  of  the 
Assembly  imploring  the  King  to  order  a  cessation  of  the 
planting  of  tobacco  in  Virginia,  Maryland,  and  Carolina 
during  the  year  1681.  He  admitted  that  this  request 
seemed  to  imply  such  a  diminution  of  the  English  customs 
revenue  as  to  carry  its  own  denial,  but  he  pointed  out  that 
tobacco  had  been  so  reduced  in  value  by  over-production, 
that  the  people  would  be  unable  to  support  themselves  any 
longer  unless  the  supply  were  lessened  and  the  price  raised. 

1  C.  O.  1/39,  58. 

2  C.  O.  1/26,  77  i;  Hening  II,  pp.  511-517. 

'  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  157.    According  to  another  estimate,  the  popula- 
tion was  at  this  time  between  80,000  and  100,000.    Ihid.  p.  134. 
*No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  p.  312;   C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  569. 


I 


! 


VIRGINLV  AND  MARYLAND 


149 


Such  a  cessation,  he  further  claimed,  would  encourage  the 
people  to  raise  other  products.^    The  Assembly's  address  ^ 
was  of  essentially  the  same  tenor,  and  further  requested  the 
King  to  approve  of  the  Act  that  they  had  just  passed  with 
the  same  ultimate  object  in  view.    This  law  'for  cohabita- 
tion and  the  encouragement  of  trade  and  manufacture'^ 
provided  that  in  each  county  should  be  established  towns 
and  storehouses,  at  which  alone  vessels  were  to  be  permitted 
to  load  and  unload.     Secretary  Spencer  wrote  that  they  were 
beginning  to  see  that  their  miseries  were  in  great  part  due 
to  their  scattered  method  of  living,*  and  it  was  hoped  that 
the  erection  of  towns  would  mean  a  diversification  of  the 
colony's  economic  life.    In  order  to  further  this  scheme, 
the  Assembly  requested  the  King  to  remit  for  seven  years 
to  the  inhabitants  of  such  towns  payment  of  the  one-penny 
duty  of  1673  on  tobacco  shipped  to  the  other  colonies  and 
also  of  one  half-penny  in  the  customs  on  shipments  to  Eng- 
land.   And  for  "the  better  advance  of  trade  and  Cohabi- 
tacon,"  the  Assembly  further  begged  that  they  might  be 
permitted  to  enhance  the  value  of  all  English  and  foreign 
coins  by  twenty-five  per  cent  and  to  prohibit  their  exporta- 
tion from  the  colony.^ 

1  In  addition,  he  wrote  that  tobacco  was  so  low  that  the  planter  was 
not  able  to  clothe  himself  even  meanly,  and  besides  'we  have  the  greatest 
crop  ever  known  now,'  which  with  the  stock  in  the  country  wiU  be  more 
than  the  ships  can  carry  away  in  the  next  two  years. 

2  Va.  Mag.  XIV,  pp.  369-371- 
»  Hening  II,  pp.  477,  478. 

« No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  p.  312;  C  C.  1677-1680,  p.  569. 

«  Va.  Mag.  XIV,  p.  370. 


\<  ) 


\i 


i'1 


# 


i 


ISO 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


The  proposal  for  a  cessation  ^  was  sent  to  the  Treasury,^ 
and  by  them  was  referred  to  their  subordinate  board,  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Customs,  who  reported,  early  in  1681,* 
that  they  doubted  whether  the  plan  would  prove  agreeable  to 
the  poorer  planters,  although  'it  might  be  of  advantage  to  the 
wealthier  men  in  Virginia,  and  still  more  to  the  merchants 
who  are  engrossers  here  and  have  large  stocks  on  their 
hands.'  Following  up  Secretary  Spencer's  hint,  they,  how- 
ever, pointed  out  that  the  average  customs  receipts  in  Eng- 
land on  tobacco  during  the  preceding  years  had  been  £100,- 
000;  and  that,  if  planting  were  stopped  for  a  year,  the  greater 
part  of  this  revenue  would  be  lost,  and  further  there  would 
be  no  employment  for  the  shipping  engaged  in  the  tobacco 
trade.  In  regard  to  what  Spencer  had  written  about  the 
size  of  the  crop,  they  remarked  that  there  had  been  '  the 
like  reports  of  great  crops  in  former  years,  and  that  our 
shipping  has  rather  wanted  freight  than  the  crops  a  sale.' 
Finally,  they  stated  that  most  parts  of  Christendom  were 
at  present  suppUed  with  Virginia  tobacco,  and  that,  if  a 
cessation  were  ordered, '  the  Spaniards,  Dutch,  and  French 
may  grow  a  greater  quantity  in  their  plantations  and  take 
the  trade  from  us,  to  say  nothing  of  the  stimulus  that  would 
be  given  to  the  production  of  tobacco  in  England.'  Thus, 
as  in  1664  and  1667,  the  Customs  officials  reported  against 

*  Lord  Culpeper,  who  had  finally  assumed  the  duties  of  his  office  in  Vir- 
ginia, proposed  that  Lord  Baltimore  be  ordered  to  concur  with  Virginia  in 
such  reduction  of  tobacco  planting  as  might  seem  advisable  to  the  Council 
and  Assembly  there.    C.  O.  1/45,  74;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  587,  588. 

*  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  637. 
«  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  2. 


VIRGINLV  AND  MARYLAND 


151 


I 


this  scheme  for  restricting  the  output,  and  accordingly  the 
English  government  rejected  it. 

Virginia,  however,  continued  to  urge  the  necessity  of 
such  a  measure.     On  May   13,   1681,^   Nicholas  Spencer 
wrote   to   Sir  Leoline    Jenkins    that  Virginia    was    very 
quiet  and   that  of  late  the  Indians  had  troubled  them 
very   little,   but   'our   most   formidable   enemy,   poverty, 
is  falling  violently  on  us  through  the  low  value,  or  rather 
no   value,    of   tobacco.'    Their   only  hope,   he    said,   lay 
in  a  year's  cessation,  as  their  general  poverty  prevented  the 
erection  of  iron  and  potash  works  for  which  Virginia  had  the 
raw  materials  in  abundance.    They  could  also  furnish,  he 
added,  enough  corn,  pipe-staves,  and  timber  to  supply  other 
markets,  were  it  not  that  the  freight  devoured  their  entire 
produce;  while  flax,  which  was  their  most  hopeful  product, 
had  hitherto  been  of  Httle  advantage,  owing  to  their  lack 
of  skill.     At  the  same  time,  the  Council  and  Burgesses 
petitioned  the  King  in  similar  terms  for  a  cessation,  and  also 
renewed  their  requests  of  the  preceding  year  in  connection 
with  the  "Cohabitation  Act.''^    Lord  Culpeper,  who  was 
again  in  England,  strongly  supported  the  colony.    He  told 
the  government  that  the  low  price  of  tobacco  spelt  disaster 
and  that  the  situation  was  desperate,  as  it  was  commonly 
reported  that  there  was  enough  tobacco  in  London  to  last 
all  England  for  five  years.     'Too  much  plenty  would  make 
gold  itself  a  drug,'  he  said,  and  'our  thriving  is  our  undo- 
ing, and  our  purchase  of  negroes,  by  increasing  the  supply 

1  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  47,  48. 

2  Ibid.  p.  94. 


i 


11 


*  if 


152 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


of  tobacco,  has  greatly  contributed  thereunto.'  Culpeper 
urged  the  advisability  of  building  towns  in  the  colony,  and 
recommended  the  concession  of  the  favors  asked  by  Vir- 
ginia for  this  purpose.^  The  Virginia  "Cohabitation  Act" 
of  1680  was,  however,  poorly  drafted,^  and,  as  the  Commis- 
sioners of  the  Customs  reported  that  it  was  unworkable,^ 
the  government  ordered  Lord  Culpeper  to  get  the  Virginia 
Assembly  to  frame  a  law  that  would  be  more  practicable 
and  less  prejudicial  to  the  customs  revenue.^  Permission 
was,  however,  granted  to  issue  a  proclamation  making 
foreign  coins  legal  tender,  except  for  certain  taxes,  at  rates 
above  their  intrinsic  value.  ^  Culpeper  likewise  suggested 
that  a  fresh  market  for  tobacco  might  be  found  in  Russia, 
but,  as  the  Muscovy  Company  reported  that  its  use  there 
was  forbidden  by  both  ecclesiastical  and  secular  law,  this 
was  for  the  present  fruitless.  Despite  the  shortness  of  his 
stay  in  Virginia,  Culpeper  had  an  intelligent  insight  into 
conditions  there  and  proposed  many  reforms,  especially 
the  substitution  of  import  duties  on  liquors  for  the  burden- 
some and  inequitable  poll-tax.  This  suggestion,  and  also 
his  recommendation  that  £300  worth  of  flax  and  hemp  seed 
should  be  sent  to  Virginia,  met  with  the  approval  of  the 
Lords  of  Trade.^ 

1 C.  C.  1681-168S,  pp.  127, 128, 130, 131, 153, 154, 156, 160. 

2  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  588,  589;   Hening  II,  pp.  541,  542. 

'  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  152.    C/.  ibid.  pp.  423-426;  Hening  II,  pp.  561- 

563. 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  157,  158,  169,  171;  Hening  II,  p.  508. 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  169. 

^  Ibid.  pp.  142,  156,  160,  169. 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND 


153 


No  immediate  relief,  however,  could  be  expected  from 
these  measures,  and  it  is  doubtful  if  any  effective  remedy 
could  have  been  devised  by  the  government.  In  their  im- 
patience and  despair,  the  planters  in  some  sections  of  Vir- 
ginia decided  in  the  spring  of  1682  upon  steps  of  so  radical 
a  nature  as  to  furnish  absolute  proof  of  the  genuineness  of 
the  distress.  The  low  price  of  tobacco  was  at  this  time 
termed  a  calamity,  "the  sad  resentment  of  which  would 
force  blood  from  any  loyal  Christian  subject's  heart."  ^  In 
Gloucester  County  and  in  New  Kent,  some  of  the  people 
entered  into  an  agreement  to  destroy  their  growing  crops 
and  those  of  their  neighbors.^  Despite  the  vigorous  opposi- 
tion of  the  colonial  authorities,  this  movement  gained  con- 
siderable headway,  and,  before  it  was  under  control,  a  large 
part  of  the  growing  crops  in  these  two  coimties  and  also  some 
small  quantities  in  the  neighboring  districts  were  destroyed.^ 
According  to  Lord  Baltimore,  the  amount  of  tobacco  thus 
ruined  was  equivalent  to  six  or  seven  thousand  hogsheads, 
while  some  placed  it  as  high  as  ten  thousand.* 

^  Ibid.  p.  221. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  228,  229.  See  also  ibid.  pp.  231-233.  In  1680,  there  were 
already  sporadic  instances  of  such  plant-cutting.  C.  O.  1/4S,  74;  C.  C. 
1677-1680,  pp.  587,  588. 

»  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  237,  238,  240,  241,  244,  245. 

*  Ibid.  p.  241.  This  estimate  was  given  by  Baltimore  in  his  letter  of 
May  31,  1682,  at  which  time  the  movement  had  been  virtually  suppressed. 
Some  considerable  quantity  of  tobacco  continued,  however,  to  be  destroyed 
at  night,  and  in  August  Secretary  Spencer  wrote  that  there  was  a  revival 
of  this  'extravagant  and  sick-brained  tobacco-plant-cutting,'  adding  also 
that  *it  is  plain  that  Bacon's  rebellion  has  left  an  itching  behind  it.'  Ibid. 
pp.  275,  276.    Cf.  ibid.  p.  424. 


i'l 


154 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


I 


II 


When  the  news  of  these  proceedings  reached  England  in 
June  of  1862,  Lord  Culpeper  was  ordered  to  repair  with  all 
possible  speed  to  Virginia  in  order  to  put  a  stop  to  the  riots 
and  to  punish  those  most  guilty.^  Culpeper,  however,  on  va- 
rious grounds  delayed  his  departure,  and  it  was  only  shortly 
before  the  end  of  the  year  that  he  arrived  in  Virginia.^ 
He  found  an  entirely  changed  condition.  The  riots  had 
been  quelled  and  some  of  the  ringleaders  were  in  prison.^ 
Moreover,  through  one  of  the  sudden  shifts  characteristic 
of  that  imstable  commodity,  the  price  of  tobacco  had  risen 
so  much  that  there  was  no  longer  any  complaint  on  this  score. 
This  rise  was  in  the  face  of  a  growing  crop  of  unprecedented 
size.*  On  March  25,  1683,^  Nicholas  Spencer  wrote  to  the 
Secretary  of  State,  Sir  Leoline  Jenkins,  that  the  higher 
prices  had  '  quieted  the  minds  of  our  unthrifty  inhabitants, 
who  cannot  be  persuaded  to  undertake  some  new  industry, 
but  prefer  to  Hve  miserably  by  tobacco.  The  pleasing 
thought  of  a  cessation  of  planting  they  have  for  the  present 
laid  aside,  but  when  the  market  is  again  cloyed  with  tobacco 
(as  it  probably  will  be  in  two  years'  time,  for  never  was 
greater  promise  of  a  crop  than  this  spring),  then  they  will 
cry  out  again  for  a  cessation,  which,  if  granted,  would  only 
serve  to  enrich  some  few  and  make  the  generality  far  more 
miserable.     By  my  observation  I  cannot  persuade  myself 

1  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  249-251,  260,  266,  267,  291,  293. 
» Ibid.  pp.  308,  309,  385,  401. 

» On  May  29,  1683,  Secretary  Spencer  wrote  that  two   of  the  plant- 
cutters  had  been  executed.    Ibid.  p.  434. 
<  Ibid.  pp.  385,  406,  407,  434,  506,  507. 
^  Ibid.  pp.  410,  411. 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND 


^55 


that  either  a  cessation  or  a  stint  in  the  number  of  plants 
will  efifect  what  is  intended.  The  work  must  do  itself ;  the 
crop  must  grow  to  such  vast  quantities  that  no  one  will 
come  to  fetch  it,  and  then  the  law  of  necessity  will  force 
them  to  new  industries.'  Lord  Culpeper  was  of  the  same 
opinion,  and,  on  his  return  to  England  in  the  early  fall  of 
1683,  he  told  the  government  that  he  had  rather  encouraged 
the  planting  of  tobacco,  as  it  would  'sooner  cause  another 
glut,  and  force  the  people  to  new  industry.'  ^  This  was  un- 
questionably a  wise  and  sensible  view  of  the  situation.  A 
restriction  of  the  output  or  a  cessation  enjoined  by  the 
government  would  have  been  ineffective,  for,  if  the  price  of 
tobacco  were  sufficiently  tempting,  the  planters  would  grow 
as  much  as  might  seem  advisable  to  them  and  the  meagre 
forces  in  the  colony  would  have  been  completely  unable 
to  enforce  the  law.  It  was  only  by  such  natural  means 
as  Spencer  and  Culpeper  had  outlined  —  through  the  stress 
of  dire  necessity  —  that  Virginia  could  be  diverted  to  other 
pursuits. 

During  this  period  of  distress,  Virginia  had  adopted  some 
measures  designed  to  introduce  other  industries.  A  law  of 
1682  prohibited  the  exportation  of  iron,  wool,  woolfells, 
hides  and  skins  (both  tanned  and  raw),  on  the  ground  that 
they  were  necessary  to  Virginia  and  would  give  work  to  many 
unemployed.^  Another  Act  of  the  same  year  obliged  every 
tithable  to  plant  a  certain  quantity  of  flax  and  hemp,  and 

*  Ibid.  pp.  496-499 ;  Va.  Mag.  Ill,  pp.  225-238. 
2  Hening  II,  pp.  493-497.    In  1680,  the  exportation  of  raw  hides  and 
skins  had  been  forbidden.    Ibid.  pp.  482,  483. 


t  '.\ 


:^\\ 


156 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


offered  bounties  for  these  commodities  as  well  as  for  linens, 
woollens,  hats,  and  worsted  hose.^  Similar  measures  had 
been  enacted  by  Virginia  in  former  years.  They  had  all 
been  equally  futile,  and  had  hitherto  attracted  no  atten- 
tion in  England.  These  Acts  were  now  referred  to  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Customs,  whose  advice  was  being 
more  and  more  sought  on  all  questions  of  this  nature. 
They  reported  that,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Staple 
Act  of  1663  was  designed  to  make  England  the  colonies' 
source  of  supply  for  manufactured  goods,  it  was  in- 
appropriate 'that  the  people  of  a  Colony  should  be 
compelled  to  manufacture  goods  under  penalties';  and, 
further,  that  the  Act  would  not  only  injure  the  customs  and 
trade  of  England,  but,  as  the  boimties  were  to  be  paid  out 
of  the  commodities  shipped  to  England,  the  price  thereof 
would  be  raised  to  the  English  consimier.^  The  Lords  of 
Trade  confirmed  this  report,  and  the  new  Governor,  Lord 
Howard  of  Efl5ngham,  was  notified  that  the  King  dis- 
approved and  repealed  the  Act  for  the  encouragement  of 
manufactures.^  Accordingly  in  1684  Virginia  repealed  this 
law,  stating  that  the  bounties  had  been  "found  to  be  rather 
a  charge  and  inconvenience,  then  any  benefitt  to  the  pub- 
lique. ' '  ^  Similarly,  among  the  five  laws  which,  in  accordance 
with  his  instructions,  Governor  Lord  Howard  of  Effingham 

1  Hening  11,  pp.  503-506.  See  also  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  322,  323,  564, 
567.  The  two  last  entries  in  the  calendar  should  be  under  1682,  not 
1683. 

«  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  529. 

3  Ibid.  pp.  537,  558. 

4  Hening  III,  p.  16 ;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  623,  641. 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND 


157 


repealed  by  proclamation  in  June  of  1684  was  the  law  pro- 
hibiting the  exportation  of  iron,  wool,  and  other  commodities.^ 
As  such  laws  had  hitherto  proven  themselves  completely 
useless,  this  action  was  of  but  slight  practical  importance, 
but  it  marked  a  distmct  step  in  EngHsh  policy.  The 
attempts  to  divert  the  colonies  from  tobacco  were  hereafter 
abandoned.  The  most  potent  factor  in  inducing  this 
change  in  the  English  government's  attitude  was  the  large 
revenue  derived  from  the  customs  on  this  commodity,  which 
at  this  time  was  greatly  increased  by  the  additional  duty 
imposed  in  1685.^ 

After  punishing  the  leaders  of  the  riotous  plant-cutters 
in  Virginia,  Culpeper  had  in  1683  returned  to  England  with- 
out requesting  permission  from  the  EngHsh  government. 
In  punishment  he  was  deprived  of  his  post,  and  Lord  How- 
ard of  Effingham  was  appointed  in  his  stead.^  During  Lord 
Howard's  administration  constitutional  questions,  involv- 
ing mainly  the  respective  rights  and  privileges  of  the  Assem- 
bly and  Governor,  became  prominent,^  and  the  economic 
problem  was  shifted  to  the  background.  In  1684,  immoder- 
ate rains  greatly  curtailed  the  size  of  the  crop,^  but  in  1685 
there  was  a  plentiful  harvest.^  In  1686,  there  was  again 
a  very  large  crop,  and  in  order  to  curtail  the  next  one, 

1  Va.  Mag.  XVIII,  p.  371 ;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  P-  655. 

2  Cf.  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  76. 

3  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  473,  478,  479,  505. 

*Ibid.  pp.  623,  639,  640,  655,  747;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  118,  149-151, 
168,  185,  224. 

« C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  665,  669;  Ormonde  MSS.  New  Series  (H.M.C. 
1912)  VII,  p.  259. 

« C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  168. 


« 


!| 


iS8 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


SO  as  to  prevent  a  glut  of  the  market,  the  Assembly  passed 
a  law  forbidding  the  planting  of  tobacco  after  June  30  in 
any  year.^  After  considerable  hesitation,  Lord  Howard  as- 
sented to  it,  arguing  that  the  EngUsh  customs  would  not  be 
lessened  as  the  surplus  of  the  1686  crop  would  compensate 
for  any  deficiency  in  that  of  1687,  and  besides  the  Crown 
could  disallow  the  law.^  When  the  Act  came  up  for  con- 
sideration in  England,  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs 
again  registered  their  disapproval  of  such  proposals  on  the 
same  grounds  as  before,  and  also  'more  especially  consider- 
ing the  greatness  of  the  new  impost  on  tobacco,  we  do  not 
recommend  that  it  be  confirmed,  lest  some  unforeseen  in- 
convenience to  trade  should  foUow,  with  prejudice  to  the 
King's  revenue.'^  The  Assembly,  however,  insisted  that 
the  law  was  a  good  one,  and  refused  to  repeal  it."*  Its  fear 
of  a  marked  decline  in  the  price  of  tobacco  was,  however, 
not  reahzed;  and,  during  the  reign  of  James  II,  Virginia  was 
apparently  in  an  exceptionally  prosperous  state.  Apart 
from  some  small  quantities  of  skins  and  lumber,^  virtually 

1  Hening  III,  pp.  33-35.  In  1683,  the  Virginia  Council  wrote  to  the 
Lords  of  Trade  that  'the  inhabitants  of  the  country  are  mostly  extremely 
poor,'  and  that  it  was  necessary  that  the  output  of  tobacco  be  reduced. 
With  this  object  in  view,  they  proposed  to  forbid  the  planting  of  tobacco 
after  June  24,  and  petitioned  the  King  to  enjoin  a  like  regulation  upon 
Maryland  and  Carolina.  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  423-426;  Hening  II,  pp. 
561-563. 

2  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  313,  324. 
^Ibid.  p.  sgi. 

*  Ibid.  pp.  539,  547-549- 

5  In  1682,  William  Fitzhugh  shipped  to  England  fairly  large  quantities  of 
pipe- staves  and  also  some  walnut  wood.    Fitzhugh  Letters,  in  Va.  Mag.  I, 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND 


159 


the  sole  export  was  tobacco,  and  this  for  the  time  being  com- 
manded a  fair  price.^ 

During  Lord  Howard's  administration  the  question  of 
illegal  trade  in  Virginia  became  very  prominent.    When  used 
in  an  undifferentiated  sense,  illegal  trade  is  a  term  of  con- 
siderable extension,  covering,  besides  violations  of  the  laws  of 
trade  and  navigation,  evasions  of  the  colonial  revenue  laws,^ 
intercourse  with  pirates,  and  infringements  of  the  monopolies 
of  the  great  trading  companies,  especially  that  of  the  Royal 
African  Company.     For  the  purpose  immediately  in  hand, 
attention  may  advantageously  be  confined  to  the  violations 
of  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation.     The  main  provisions 
likely  to  be  violated  in  Virginia  were  those  enumerating 
tobacco  and  prohibiting  the  importation  of  European  goods 
from  places  other  than  England.     As  Virginia  had  virtu- 
ally no  mercantile  marine,  its  inhabitants  could  not  be 
the  direct  perpetrators  of  any  such  violations,  although 
there  was  some  opportunity  for  guilt  in  conniving  at  them. 
The  great  bulk  of  Virginia  tobacco  was  exported  in  ships 
from  England,  which  had  given  bond  there  to  bring  back  the 
enmnerated  commodities.     It  was  the  duty  of  the  English 

pp.  107, 122  5/  passim.  In  1683-1684,  William  Byrd  shipped  to  Perry,  Lane, 
and  other  English  merchants  tobacco,  furs,  and  deer-skins.  Byrd  Letters 
in  Va.  Hist.  Register  I,  pp.  62  et  seq.,  114  et  seq.;  II,  pp.  78  et  seq.,  203 
et  seq.  See  also  The  Present  State  of  England  (London,  1683)  IV, 
p.  63. 

1  C/.  Va.  Mag.  II.  p.  137. 

2  In  1 68 1,  Lord  Culpeper  stated  that  there  were  great  abuses  in  the  pay- 
ment of  the  Virginia  two  shillings  a  hogshead  export  duties,  but  that  these 
could  not  be  discovered  until  the  ships  had  unloaded  in  England.  C.  C. 
1681-1685,  p.  142. 


I 


i 


i6o 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


bi    . 


customs  authorities  to  ascertain  if  the  condition  of  these 
bonds  was  complied  with,  it  being  solely  incumbent  upon 
the  officials  in  the  colony  to  see  that  each  ship  had  given 
such  bond  in  England.  After  this  had  been  attended  to, 
the  colony  had  no  further  concern  in  the  matter,  and  could 
not  be  held  to  account  if  these  ships  violated  the  law.  The 
penalties  for  so  doing  were,  however,  so  heavy  that,  in  the 
absence  of  direct  evidence  to  the  contrary,  it  must  be  assumed 
that  such  evasions  were  very  exceptional  and  sporadic. 
In  addition  to  the  English  vessels,  a  number  of  colonial 
ships,  far  fewer  in  numbers  and  much  smaller  in  burden, 
traded  to  Virginia.  These  traders,  especially  those  from  New 
England,  were  responsible  for  most  of  the  illegal  practices 
in  Virginia,  and  in  large  part  these  violations  of  the  law 
must  be  attributed  to  the  laxity  of  the  authorities  in  Mas- 
sachusetts and  elsewhere.  The  New  England  ships  im- 
ported into  Virginia  some  European  goods  that  had  not 
originally  come  from  England.  They  also  exported  from 
Virginia  some  tobacco  which,  after  being  landed  in  New  Eng- 
land in  accordance  with  the  condition  of  the  bonds  given  on 
shipment,  was  subsequently,  in  violation  of  the  law,  sent  to 
foreign  markets.  In  some  instances  also,  these  colonial 
traders  evaded  the  payment  of  the  one-penny  duty  of  1673. 
It  is  naturally  a  most  difficult  matter  to  determine  pre- 
cisely the  extent  of  this  illegal  trade.  In  1662  and  1663, 
various  complaints  were  made  of  a  secret  trade  between 
the  tobacco  colonies  and  New  Netherland,^  but  the  con- 

^  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  345,  357,  597 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  HI,  pp.  44-47 ; 

c.  o.  1/14, 59,  ff.  ss,  54. 


I 


VIRGINIA  AND   MARYLAND 


161 


quest  of  the  Dutch  colony  in  1664  removed  this  difficulty. 
Thereafter,  naturally,  no  complaint  was  made  of  such  prac- 
tices, but  in  other  respects  also  the  laws  seem  to  have  been 
fairly  effectively  enforced.  In  reply  to  the  English  govern- 
ment's injunctions  for  their  strict  observance.  Secretary 
Ludwell  wrote  in  1670  that  Governor  Berkeley  "is  cer- 
tainly most  carefull  of  his  Ma'ties  interest  and  the  farmers 
(of  the  customs),  &  (we)  doe  assure  yo'r  Hon'r  that 
there  hath  never  any  ship  or  vessell  traded  here  contrary 
to  the  s'd  acts,  nor  any  suspected  soe  to  have  donn  w'ch 
hath  not  by  his  command  been  brought  to  tryall.  .  .  . 
The  Gove'r  takes  such  care  to  imploy  officers  in  all  parts  of 
the  best  quality  and  greatest  honesty  that  (it)  is  very  diffi- 
cult for  any  to  escape  and,  having  publish  it,  that  all  may 
know  the  reward  assigned  by  the  acts  of  Pari,  upon  con- 
victed shipps,  every  man  makes  himselfe  a  waighter  ^  and 
reddy  to  informe  upon  any  breach  of  law."  ^ 

A  few  years  later,  however,  during  the  course  of  his  acri- 
monious dispute  with  Governor  Berkeley,  the  Collector 
of  the  Customs,  Giles  Bland,  sent  to  the  Governor  an  account 
"of  the  dayly  frauds  comitted  or  intended  to  be  comitted 
agf  his  ma^.'  Interest  &  the  express  Acts  of  Parliam* 
relating  to  the  Plantation  trade,  w*^^  w'^  out  yof  Hono" 
assistance  cannot  be  putt  in  effectual  execution."  ^    Bland 

^  I.e.  SL  customs  inspector. 

^  Va.  Mag.  XIX,  pp.  354,  355.  In  1671,  Berkeley  himself  wrote :  "  Wee 
are  most  obedient  to  all  Lawes  whilst  the  New  England  men  breake  through 
them,  and  trade  to  any  place  that  theire  interest  leade  them  too."  C.  O. 
1/26,  77  i;   Hening  II,  pp.  511-517. 

'  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  ff.  511  et  seq. 

M  (2) 


ititi 


I. 


II 


162 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


further  wrote  to  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  that 
several  vessels  had  arrived  from  New  England  with  mis- 
cellaneous cargoes,  consisting  in  part  of  Canary  wines, 
textiles,  oils,  and  other  European  goods,  without  having 
certificates  showing  that  they  had  been  originally  shipped 
from  England.  "But  how  to  proceed  ag'  them,"  he  said, 
"I  know  not,  they  being  Indulged  by  the  higher  powers." . 
Furthermore,  he  complained  that  these  New  England 
vessels  evaded  the  payment  of  the  1673  one-penny  duty 
on  tobacco.^ 

After  making  due  allowance  for  the  partisan  bias  in  these 
statements,  still  some  credence  must  be  given  to  them,^  for 
no  laws  of  this  nature  could  be  fully  carried  into  effect  in  a 
country  so  well  watered  as  was  Virginia.  In  1683,  the 
Council  of  the  colony  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  that  a 
small  man-of-war  was  necessary  to  suppress  piracy  and  to 
check  the  frauds  of  dishonest  traders,  and  that  no  other 
means  would  prove  effective  on  accoxmt  of  the  numerous 
ports  and  rivers.^  At  the  same  time,  the  newly  appointed 
Governor  of  the  colony.  Lord  Howard  of  Effingham,  also 
urged  the  despatch  of  a  frigate  to  Virginia  for  the  same  pur- 
poses.^ This  recommendation  was  adopted;^  and,  in  1684, 
H.M.S.  Quaker,  a  ketch  under  the  command  of  Captain 

^Brit.  Mus.,  Eg  rton  MSS.  2395,  ff.  511  et  seq. 

2  In  1676,  Berkeley  wrote  to  Secretary  Ludwell  that  his  officers  "rigor- 
ously" exacted  the  payment  of  the  1673  duties  from  the  New  England 
traders.    Va.  Mag.  XX,  p.  247. 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  423-426;  Hening  II,  pp.  561-563. 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  P-  505. 
''Ibid.  pp.  529,  531,  557,  572. 


VIRGINL\  AND  MARYLAND 


163 


Allen,  arrived  on  the  Virginia  station.^  Secretary  Ludwell 
wrote  that  she  was  welcome,  and  would  both  protect  them 
against  pirates  and  also  prevent  the  frauds  too  often  prac- 
tised by  the  New  England  traders.  About  two  years  later, 
H.M.S.  Deptjord,  under  Captain  Crofts,  was  likewise 
stationed  in  the  tobacco  colonies.^  The  letters  of  these 
naval  officers  to  their  superiors  in  England  throw  consider- 
able light  upon  the  administration  of  the  law  in  Virginia. 

On  December  29,  1685,  Captam  Allen  wrote  that  the 
Virginians  were  angry  at  his  staying  there,  and  said  that  he 
had  spoilt  their  trade,  because  he  would  not  let  them  cheat 
the  Eang ;  they  called  him  old  rogue  and  old  dog  and,  when 
they  saw  his  ship,  said:  "Here  comes  the  devil's  ketch." 
While  he  was  absent,  the  letter  contmued,  they  hired  small 
vessels  and  shipped  tobacco  to  New  York  or  Newfoundland, 
"and  from  thence  bring  french  brandy,  and  the  Tobacco 
they  ship  away  for  Holland,  and  soe  cheat  the  King  of  his 
due."  ^    Twelve  months  later,  Captain  Allen  wrote  that  he 

*  Ihid.  pp.  658,  659. 

2  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  277. 

'  C.  O.  1/61,  60  i.  One  of  the  main  causes  of  Bacon's  rebellion  was  the 
inequitable  poll-tax,  which  fell  equally  on  poor  and  rich.  Lord  Culpeper 
had  especially  recommended  that,  in  its  stead,  Virginia  should  impose  an 
import  duty  on  liquors.  Instructions  to  this  effect  were  sent  to  the  colony, 
and,  in  1684,  the  Assembly  passed  a  law  imposing  such  duties.  C.  C.  1681- 
1685,  pp.  155,  156,  641,  642,  658.  Cf.  W.  Z.  Ripley,  Financial  History  of 
Virginia,  pp.  69,  70.  In  contradistinction  to  the  Massachusetts  law, 
which  aroused  Randolph's  indignation  and  formed  one  section  of  his  in- 
dictment against  that  colony,  this  Virginia  law  specifically  exempted  from 
these  duties  such  wines,  brandies,  etc.  as  were  imported  directly  from  Eng- 
land. Hening  III,  p.  23.  Allen  was,  however,  not  satisfied.  In  the  letter 
quoted  in  the  text,  he  stated  that  the  traders,  who  illegally  imported 


ll 


I 


I 


164 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


hoped  that  a  great  deal  of  tobacco  would  reach  England  this 
year,  since  he  had  defeated  the  designs  of  the  New  York  and 
New  England  vessels.  On  April  10,  1687,  Captain  Crofts 
wrote  that  the  Governor,  Lord  Howard,  was  treating 
them  very  badly  and  interfered  with  their  work,  citing  three 
specific  instances  in  which  seizures  made  by  him  had  been 
discharged.  The  first  case  was  a  bark  from  New  England 
with  seven  bales  of  dry-goods,  of  which  only  four  had  been 
entered.  Then,  an  English  ship,  which  had  entered  for  ex- 
port but  ninety-two  out  of  two  hundred  hogsheads,  was  also 
dismissed.  Thirdly,  he  had  taken  a  French  ship  with  brandy, 
but  as  Lord  Howard  said  it  belonged  to  Governor  Dongan 
of  New  York,  he  had  released  it.  This  vessel.  Crofts  said, 
was  then  seized  by  one  of  the  Virginia  collectors,  on  How- 
ard's orders,  and  was  subsequently  condemned.  In  an- 
other letter.  Crofts  maintained  that  Lord  Howard  was 
hostile  to  him  because  he  interfered  with  the  iUicit  traders 
from  New  York  and  New  England;  and  he  further  stated 
that  most  of  the  Virginia  Collectors  were  members  of  the 

brandy  from  New  York  and  Newfoundland,  paid  "the  3^  p  Gallon  which 
they  haue  by  an  Act  of  Assembly  and  soe  they  goe  ffree,  and  I  satisfie  them 
that  noe  European  Goods  must  pay  Custome  to  your  Country  here  but 
Rume  fiall  or  Medear.  You  may  lay  what  duty  you  will,  but  if  Rume 
fiall  or  Medear  come  out  of  England  they  shall  pay  noe  duty  here,  for 
theire  Act  of  Assembly  cant  reach  England  or  his  Ma*^  duty."  As  most 
of  the  wine  consumed  came  directly  from  the  Madeiras,  the  point  raised 
was  in  this  connection  of  no  great  practical  importance.  As  yet  the  Eng- 
lish government  had  taken  no  definite  stand  on  this  matter.  Later,  how- 
ever, the  colonies  were  forbidden  to  levy  duties  on  merchandise  imported 
from  England,  but  this  instruction  was  never  strictly  enforced.  See  A.  A. 
Giesecke,  American  Commercial  Legislation  before  1789,  pp.  26-31. 


i 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND 


165 


Council,  and  also  merchants,  'and  my  Lord  takes  it  ill  that 
I  should  examine  their  ships  especially.'  ^ 

These  letters  apparently  indicate  a  serious  condition  of 
affairs,  but  fortimately  the  other  side  of  the  shield  is  also 
visible.  Governor  Howard  had  accused  Crofts  of  insubor- 
dination, of  cruelty  to  his  officers,  and  of  blackmailing 
innocent  traders.^  These  charges  and  the  accompanying 
documents  were  sent  by  William  Blathwayt  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Admiralty,  Samuel  Pepys,  who  in  his  turn  for- 
warded to  the  Lords  of  Trade  the  above-quoted  extracts 
from  the  letters  of  Captains  Allen  and  Crofts,  so  that  Lord 
Howard  might  have  an  opportunity  of  answering  them. 
In  reply  thereto,  on  February  14,  1688,  Governor  Howard 
wrote  to  the  Earl  of  Sunderland  and  the  Lords  of  the  Council 
denying  Crofts's  charges,  and  stating  that  they  were  simply 
a  cloak  to  cover  his  own  oppressions.^  At  the  same  time, 
he  enclosed  answers  to  each  specific  article,  with  documents 
to  support  them."*  In  reply  to  Allen's  charge  that  tobacco 
was  shipped  via  New  York  and  Newfoundland  to  Holland, 
whence  in  turn  brandy  was  imported,  he  merely  stated  that 

1  C.  O.  1/61,  6oi;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  465-467.  Crofts  wrote:  "I 
cruizing  betwixt  the  Capes  of  Virginia  meets  with  New  England  Ketches, 
New  York  Sloops  and  Vessels  that  belongs  to  this  place,  w*'?'  formerly  paid 
but  little  Custome  to  his  Ma".^  and  likewise  Shipps  that  goes  for  Holland, 
Hamburgh,  &  other  places  adjacent  there,  who  uses  to  bring  in  European 
Goods  here,  V^  now  by  Reason  of  the(ir)  hauing  not  y®  liberty  &  Priv- 
iledge  as  formerly  for  feare  of  my  meeting  with  them  makes  my  Lord  soe 
unkind  to  me." 

2  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  372-374,  387,  388,  444. 
»  C.  O.  1/62,  20;  C.  C,  1685-1688,  p.  494. 

*  C.  O.  1/62,  20  ii,  iv-xv. 


I 


I 


\i 


i66 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


the  accusers  refused  to  give  any  particulars.    But,  when 
the  accusation  was  precise  and  definite,  Howard  gave  the 
detailed  facts.    Thus'  in  answer  to  Crofts's  charge  that  an 
English  vessel  had  laden  one  hundred  more  hogsheads  than 
had  been  entered,  Lord  Howard  stated  that  this  was  simply 
an  error  of  Secretary  Spencer's,. who  had  carelessly  written 
92  for  192.     This  ship  had  given  bond  in  Bristol,  had  paid 
the  Virginia  export  duties  on  192  hogsheads,  and  no  fraud 
had  been  either  intended  or  committed.^    As  regards  the 
charge  that  a  ship  had  been  freed  after  entering  seven  bales 
of  merchandise,  while  the  certificate  of  the  English  customs- 
house  called  for  only  four,  Lord  Howard  said  that  at  the 
trial  it  was  contended  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  jury  that  the 
goods  had  had  to  be  repacked  in  transit,  which  accounted 
for  the  discrepancy.^    Less  satisfactory  was  the  explanation 
about  Dongan's  vessel,  which  Lord  Howard  had  ordered 
Crofts  to  release  and  which  subsequently  was  seized  and 
condemned  by  a  jury.    At  the  trial  in  the  York  County 
Court  two  charges  were  made,  of  which  the  first  was  that 
the  vessel  was  not  navigated  according  to  law.    The  master 
acknowledged  that  he  was  a  native  of  France,  but  "hee  con- 
ceived himself  a  ffree  Denizen  to  trade  in  any  of  his  Ma^^ 
Dominions"  by  virtue  of  the  denization  granted  to  him  by 
Governor  Dongan  of  New  York.    The  second  charge  was 
that  the  Staple  Act  of  1663  had  been  violated  in  that  "the 
said  Goods  &  Comodityes  of  y^  Growth  &  production  of 
Europe  were  taken  on  board  in  the  Province  of  New=York," 
as  was  evidenced  by  a  certificate  from  the  Collector  of  the 


^  C.  O.  1/62,  20  ii,  iii,  v. 


^  Ibid.  20  ii,  vi. 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND 


167 


Customs  there,  and  had  not  been  imported  directly  from 
England.^  While  it  would  seem  that  Crofts  had  been  un- 
fairly treated  in  this  matter,^  there  is  no  question  that  this 
judgment  of  condemnation  was  largely  technical,  and,  if  it 
was  not  legally  unsound,  it  certainly  erred  on  the  side  of 
undue  severity.  This  instance  unquestionably  does  not  in- 
dicate that  the  law  was  laxly  enforced  in  Virginia.  Finally, 
Lord  Howard  stated  that  no  one  of  the  Council,  but  Bacon, 
was  concerned  in  trade,  although  some  were  part  owners  of 
London  ships.  But  as  these  ships  gave  bonds  in  England  to 
return  there  with  the  enumerated  goods,  he  claimed  that 
they  could  not  be  concerned  in  the  evasion  of  the  one-penny 
duty  on  tobacco,  which  was  one  of  the  main  complaints.^ 

From  the  entire  mass  of  evidence  submitted  by  Lord 
Howard,  no  other  conclusion  can  be  drawn  but  that  the 
ofiicers  of  the  navy  were  over-zealous  in  enforcing  the  law, 
and  that  the  violations  were  not  serious  in  extent.  In  the 
main,  they  were  the  work  of  the  New  York  and  New  England 
traders,  but  they  unquestionably  were  insignificant  in  com- 
parison with  that  portion  of  Virginia's  trade  which  foUowed 
the  channels  marked  by  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation. 

In  its  broad  general  features,  the  economic  development 
of  Maryland  closely  paralleled  that  of  its  more  populous 
neighbor,  Virginia.  Both  were  essentially  tobacco  colonies, 
whose  prosperity  depended  primarily  upon  the  price  of  this 

^Ibid.  20  viii.  The  New  York  CoUector,  Lucas  Santen,  had  given  a 
certificate  that  this  vessel,  the  Katherine,  had  made  entry  and  cleared 
at  the  New  York  custom-house.     C.  O.  1/62,  20  vii. 

'  C/.  Va.  Hist.  Register  II,  p.  207. 
i    .'CO.  1/62,  20  ii,  XV. 


^ 


f^ 


i68 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


staple.  Virginia's  efforts  to  restrict  the  output  had  been 
largely  thwarted  by  the  inability  to  conclude  an  agreement 
satisfactory  to  both  colonies.  Apart  from  the  inequity  of 
the  proposal  made  in  1663,  the  smaller  planters  in  Maryland 
claimed  that  a  stint  would  ruin  them,  and  presumably  the 
same  class  in  Virginia  also  was  opposed  to  these  suggestions 
which  emanated  from  the  rich  planters  constituting  the  rul- 
ing oligarchy  in  that  colony.  Moreover,  Lord  Baltimore  ob- 
jected to  such  measures,  as  his  proprietary  revenue  was  in 
part  derived  from  export  duties  on  tobacco.^  The  political 
commotions  and  economic  disturbances  in  Virginia  from 
1675  to  1682  naturally  had  their  echoes  in  Maryland,  but 
they  were  faint,  and  the  proprietor  never  lost  control  of  the 
situation. 

As  in  Virginia,  ships  came  yearly  from  England  with  sup- 
plies of  clothing  and  tools,  and  took  away  the  tobacco  crop.^ 
The  New  England  traders  were  also  prominent  in  Maryland, 
bringing  Madeira  wine  and  other  commodities,  and  taking 
away  provisions  and  tobacco.^  Although  tobacco  was  "the 
only  Staple  Commodity,"  some  meat  and  cereals  were  also 
exported,  as  well  as  a  few  furs  obtained  from  the  In- 

1  Cf.  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.   211,  212. 

2  "Between  November  and  January  there  arrives  in  this  Province  Shipping 
to  the  number  of  twenty  sail  and  upwards,  all  Merchant-men  loaden  with 
Commodities  to  Trafique  and  dispose  of,  trucking  with  the  Planter  Silks, 
Hollands,  Serges,  and  Broad-clothes,  with  other  necessary  Goods  ...  for 
Tobacco  at  so  much  the  pound."  George  Alsop,  A  Character  of  the  Prov- 
ince of  Maryland  (1666),  edition  Mereness,  p.  70.  See  also  Baltimore's 
answers  to  the  queries  of  the  Lords  of  Trade,  1678,  in  C.  O.  1/42,  40 ;  C.  C. 
1677-1680,  pp.  226,  227. 

'  Alsop,  op.  cit.  p.  71. 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND 


169 


dians.^  In  general,  there  was  a  comparatively  larger  pro- 
duction of  grain  in  Maryland  than  in  the  neighboring  col- 
ony,2  and  in  addition  the  quality  of  the  tobacco  produced 
was  somewhat  different.  That  of  Maryland  was  in  greater 
demand  in  the  markets  of  continental  Europe.^ 

In  their  internal  political  organization  these  two  colonies 
also  closely  resembled  one  another.     Besides,  the  political 
machine  created  by  Berkeley  found  a  close  counterpart  in 
that  of  the  proprietor,  whose  relatives  occupied  the  important 
public  positions.     There  was,  however,  one  marked  and  fun- 
damental difference  between  the  two  colonies.    Virginia  was 
a  crown  colony  governed  by  officials  appointed  in  England, 
who  among  other  matters  were  directly  responsible  for  the 
enforcement  of  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation.    In  Mary- 
land, the  executive  officials  were  appointed  by  Lord  Balti- 
more as  proprietor,  and  for  a  considerable  period  there  was 
no  direct  representative  of  EngHsh  authority  within  the 
province.    The  appointment  of  customs  officials  in  Maryland 
after  the  passage  of  the  Act  of  1673  was  the  initial  inroad 
into    the   proprietor's    semi-feudal   jurisdiction,    and    first 
brought  the  people  of  Maryland  into  direct  relations  with 
the  English  government.     Prior  thereto,  the  enforcement  of 
the  laws  comprising  the  colonial  system  was  in  the  hands 
of  Lord  Baltimore  and  the  Governor  appointed  by  him. 

^Ibid.   pp.   68,   69;    C.    O.   1/42,   40;    C.   C.   1677-1680,  pp.    226, 
227. 

2  Nathaniel  Shrigley,  A  True  Relation  of  Virginia  and  Maryland.  1669, 
in  Force  III,  no.  7,  p.  5;  Alsop,  op.  cit.  pp.  41,  42,  72. 

3  Richard  Blome,  A  Description  of  the  Island  of  Jamaica  (London,  1672), 
p.  160. 


11 


H 


IJH': 


l« 


I 


I 


A' 


170 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


As  the  proprietor's  tenure  of  the  province  was  by  no  means 
secure,  it  was  highly  advisable  not  to  irritate  the  English 
government,  which  would  quickly  have  brought  suit  against 
the  charter.  In  1661,  Charles  Calvert,  the  son  of  Lord 
Baltimore,  was  appointed  Governor,  and,  although  he 
thought  these  laws  prejudicial,^  he  was  very  careful  that 
their  provisions  were  carried  into  effect.  More  detailed  and 
fuller  accoimts  of  the  trade  of  the  colony  and  of  the  bonds 
for  the  enumerated  goods  issued  there  were  sent  by  him  to 
England  than  were  received  from  any  crown  colony  prior 
to  1674.2  Furthermore,  vessels  suspected  of  illicit  prac- 
tices were  seized,  and,  if  found  guilty  on  trial,  were  con- 
demned.^ 

After  the  passage  of  the  Act  of  1673,  which  was  the  basis 
for  the  authority  exercised  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Cus- 
toms in  the  colonies,  the  Governor  himself  was  appointed 
by  them  to  collect  the  duties  imposed  by  this  law.  When 
Charles  Calvert  became  Lord  Baltimore,  he  requested  Sir 
George  Downing  to  appoint  Christopher  Rousby  as  Collector 

1  In  1678,  after  he  had  succeeded  to  his  father's  title,  Calvert  stated  that 
the  greatest  obstruction  to  the  trade  of  Maryland  were  these  laws,  but 
that  their  removal  could  not  be  expected  until  it  was  England's  interest 
to  repeal  them.     Maryland  Archives,  Proc.  of  Council,  1676-1688,  pp.  268 

et  seq, 

2  Calvert  Papers  I,  pp.  263,  264,  270,  271,  279,  295,  300. 

3  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  473,  474,  546,  548.  On  June  2,  1673,  Governor  Cal- 
vert wrote  to  Lord  Baltimore  regarding  certain,  vessels  that  had  been  seized 
as  Dutch,  but  had  been  freed  on  trial,  adding  that  they  always  brought 
with  them  "as  authentique  Testimonials,  and  Certifficates  from  his  Ma"^^ 
Customers  Collectors  &  other  Officers  as  any  Londoner  that  trades  here.'* 
Calvert  Papers  I,  pp.  279  et  seq. 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND 


171 


of  the  Customs  in  Maryland/  and  his  appointment  followed 
in  1676.2    Within  a  few  years,  Rousby  became  involved  in 
one  of  those  bitter  quarrels  with  the  colonial  authorities 
which  were  characteristic  of  the  history  of  all  the  charter 
and  proprietary  colonies.    As  these  customs  officials  repre- 
sented the  authority  of  the  Crown  within  these  quasi-feudal 
jurisdictions,  they  refused  to  subordinate  themselves  to  the 
colonial  governors,  and   occasionally  developed   an   over- 
weening sense  of  their  own  importance.     On  their  side,  the 
colonies  were  prone  to  regard  the  appointment  of  these 
officials  as  an  invasion  of  their  charter  rights,  and  at  times 
hampered  them  in  the  execution  of  their  legitimate  duties. 
Under  the  circumstances,  such  quarrels  were  inevitable. 
Their  effect  was  constantly  to  bring  the  affairs  of  these 
colonies  to  the  attention  of  the  English  government,  and  to 
hasten  the  process  of  annulling  their  charters  and  converting 
them  into  royal  provinces. 

In  1681,  Baltimore  wrote  to  the  English  government  that 
Rousby  should  be  removed  from  office,  as  he  was  guilty  of 
various  malpractices  and  had  also  expressed  himself  in 
favor  of  the  exclusion  of  the  Duke  of  York  from  the  succes- 
sion to  the  throne.  The  main  trouble  arose  from  friction 
between  the  imperial  customs  officials  and  the  provincial 
revenue  officers  appointed  by  Baltimore,  resulting  from  the 
fact  that  both  were  concerned  in  the  enforcement  of  the 
Acts  of  Trade  and  Navigation  and  had  overlapping  duties.^ 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  78. 

2  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  pp.  229,  230,  373. 
»  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  66,  67,  78-80. 


I 


I«^» 


1     I 

111 


»• 


172 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Rousby,  who  was  in  England,  was  not  only  able  to  make 
a  satisfactory  answer  to  the  charges  brought  by  Baltimore/ 
but  in  addition  his  case  was  very  much  strengthened  by 
events  in  Maryland.  During  Rousby's  absence,  Nicholas 
Badcock,  the  Comptroller  and  Surveyor  of  the  Customs,  in- 
sisted that  all  vessels  whose  bonds  permitted  them  to  sail  for 
Ireland  should  pay  the  one-penny  duty  of  1673  on  their  ship- 
ments of  tobacco.  The  law  on  the  point  at  issue  was  some- 
what confusing,  and,  as  Baltimore  did  not  understand  it, 
he  supported  those  who  refused  to  pay  these  duties.  His 
interference  cost  the  revenue  a  considerable  sum,  and  natu- 
rally aroused  the  anger  of  the  EngHsh  government.^  Balti- 
more was  severely  reprimanded,^  and  Rousby  was  ordered 
to  resume  his  duties  in  Maryland.* 

Baltimore  learned  by  this  experience  that  any  undue 
interference  with  the  customs  ofificials  would  lead  to  the  in- 
stitution of  quo  warranto  proceedings  against  his  charter, 
and  thereafter  no  complaints  were  made  by  Rousby.  In 
1684,  however,  Baltimore  sailed  for  England  and  left  the 

1  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  160-166. 

2  See  ante,  Vol.  I,  pp.  98-100.  In  his  letter  of  July  10,  1681,  complain- 
ing of  Baltimore's  interference,  Badcock  informed  the  Commissioners  of 
the  Customs  that  their  orders  must  be  very  authoritative,  "for  I  perceive 
my  Lord  and  his  Government  almost  thinke  themselves  out  of  the  Verge 
of  y®  King's  Soveraignty.  Nay  I  plainly  see  that  nothing  is  soe  evill  in 
their  Eyes  as  this  little  matter  of  the  King's  interest,  and  nothing  sounds 
so  bad  in  their  ears  as  but  y^  naming  the  King's  authority."  C.  O.  5/7 23» 
ff.  61-65 ;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  85. 

3  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  157, 159;  160,  195,  196;  P.  C.  Cal.  II,  pp.  28-31; 

C.  O.  39i/3>  f-  317- 

*  C.  O.  1/47,  no,  no  i,  ii;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  160-166. 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND 


173 


administration  of  Maryland  in  the  hands  of  the  leading 
member  of  the  Council,  George  Talbot.  In  the  autumn 
of  this  year,  Talbot  went  on  board  the  Qimker,  a  ketch  of 
the  navy,  and  while  m  a  state  of  pugnacious  intoxication 
first  tried  to  pick  a  quarrel  with  Captain  Allen  and  then 
insulted,  stabbed,  and  killed  Rousby,  the  Collector.*  Al- 
though unprovoked,  the  murder  was  preceded  by  some  dis- 
cussion as  to  the  relative  authority  of  Talbot  and  the  royal 
officers.  2  Such  friction  was  unavoidable  in  the  proprietary 
and  charter  colonies,  and  to  a  great  extent  made  unwork- 
able any  comprehensive  system  of  imperial  poHcy. 

Captain  Allen  took  Talbot  to  Virginia,  whose  Governor, 
Lord  Howard  of  Effingham,  refused  to  deUver  him  for  trial 
to  the  Maryland  authorities  until  he  should  hear  from  Eng- 
land. After  considerable  delay,  which  in  part  could  not  be 
obviated  as  Talbot  had  succeeded  in  escaping  to  temporary 
liberty,  ultimately,  in  the  spring  of  1686,  the  murderer  was 
convicted  by  the  Virginia  General  Court.  The  capital 
sentence  was,  however,  commuted  by  the  King  to  one  of 
five  years'  banishment.^ 

»  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  734,  735 ;  Toppan,  Randolph  IV,  pp.  4,  5. 

2  After  examining  the  evidence,  the  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council 
reported  in  1685  that  the  murder  was  committed  "after  some  words  had 
passed  between  Captain  AUen  the  Comander,  and  the  said  Talbot,  cheifly 
concerning  your  Majestys  Right  of  Jurisdiction  in  those  parts."  Accord- 
ing to  Captain  Allen,  Talbot  said  to  Rousby :  "  You  dog,  give  me  your  hand. 
Don't  you  know  that  I  am  your  Governor  and  can  do  you  a  kindness." 
Rousby  answered :  "I  don't  value  anything  you  can  do  to  me."    P.  C.  Cal. 

II,  p.  77;  c.  c.  1681-1685,  p-  735. 

'  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  735,  765;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  30,  31,  173,  188, 
213,  216. 


I 


i 


I  ti 


174 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


This  brutal  episode  was  followed  by  events  again  illus- 
trating the  inevitability  of  friction  between  the  imperial 
officials  and  those  of  the  proprietor.     After  the  murder  of 
Rousby,  the  Maryland  authorities  nominated  two  men  as 
*  Collectors  of  the  King's  dues'  until  some  successor  should  be 
appomted  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs/  ignoring 
the  claims  of  Nehemiah  Blackiston,  who  as  Comptroller 
was  aheady  in  the  imperial  customs  service  in  Maryland. 
On  April  20,  1685,^  Blackiston  wrote  to  his  superiors  in 
London :   '  Since  the  murder  I  have  been  continually  discoun- 
tenanced and  obstructed  in  my  proceedings  for  the  King's 
service  by  the  chief  persons  deputed  for  the  government 
of   this  Province.     They  have  contemned  and  disowned 
my  commission,  torn  and  burnt  my  certificates  to  masters 
of  ships,  and  diverted  masters  from  applying  to  me,  so  that 
ships  have  been  cleared  without  my  privity,  by  which  means 
I  am  sure  that  my  transgressors  have  escaped  and  many 
frauds  been  undetected.'    Blackiston  refused  to  recognize 
the  commissions  of  the  temporary  collectors  appointed  by 
Maryland,  and  clauned  that  the  King  lost  several  thousands 
pounds  annually,  '  by  the  obstruction  and  confusion  of  his 
affairs  here.'     Baltimore  showed  that  this  was  a  gross  exag- 
geration,^ but  on  the  general  merits  of  the  case  Blackiston 
was  upheld  and  was  appointed  to  succeed  Rousby  as  Collector 
of  the  Customs.    At  the  same  tune,  the  Commissioners  of 
the  Customs  sent  to  all  the  colonial  governors  fresh  general 

1  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  66. 

2  ibu.  pp.  30, 31 ;  c.  o.  i/ss,  92. 

3  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  66. 


VIRGINIA  AND  MARYLAND 


175 


instructions  about  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  of  trade  and 
navigation.  To  those  sent  to  Maryland  were  added  several 
special  articles,  ordering  the  proprietary  officials  to  assist 
the  royal  Collector  and  to  desist  from  collecting  the  plan- 
tation duties  of  1673.^ 

As  a  result  of  Rousby's  murder  and  of  the  subsequent 
interference  with  Blackiston,  Lord  Baltimore  was  in  great 
disfavor  with  the  government.^  In  addition,  the  Maryland 
charter  stood  m  the  way  of  James  II's  desire  to  grant  a 
favorable  boundary  to  Pennsylvania,  whose  founder  was 
one  of  his  favorites.^  Accordingly,  in  1685,  the  Attorney- 
General  was  ordered  to  bring  quo  warranto  proceedings 
against  the  charter.  In  the  following  year  the  prosecution 
of  the  writ  was  ordered,  but  nothing  had  been  effected  when 
the  landing  of  WiUiam  of  Orange  put  an  end  to  the  Stuart 
dynasty.** 

These  quarrels  in  Maryland  seemingly  indicate  a  lax 
administration  of  the  provisions  of  the  colonial  system.  It 
should,  however,  be  remembered  that  the  disturbances 
proceeded  not  from  opposition  to  these  laws,  but  primarily 
from  disputes  between  the  royal  and  proprietar}^  officials 
as  to  their  respective  authority  in  enforcing  them.  Apart 
from  Badcock's  complaints,  which  concerned  an  exceptional 
and  somewhat  confusing  temporary  state  of  affairs,^  the 

^  Ibid.  pp.  74-76. 

2  See  E.  Randolph  to  Sir  Robert  Southwell,  July  30,  1685.    Toppan, 
Randolph  III,  pp.  26-28. 

3  Mereness,  Maryland,  pp.  32,  33. 

*  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  173 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  n,  pp.  SS,  92. 
^  See  ante,  Vol.  I,  pp.  98-100. 


m\i 


I 


u 


176 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


documents  in  the  dossier  do  not  indicate  that  there  were  ex- 
tensive violations  of  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation.  This 
view  is  fully  confirmed  by  the  statement  of  Patrick  Mein, 
the  Surveyor  General  of  the  Customs  in  America,  who  had 
investigated  conditions  on  the  spot.  On  June  15,  1686, 
Mein  wrote  to  Lord  Howard  of  Efi&ngham:^  "Though  I 
find  y1  Kings  interest  here  has  suffered  by  M=  Rousby's 
death  and  y^  difference  y*  ensued  upon  it  betwixt  y^ 
Kings  Officers  and  my  Lord  Baltimores,  and  y*  severall 
Bonds  haue  been  taken  to  goe  for  England  or  Ireland,  yet 
I  must  say  I  neuer  saw  any  Merch=  Bookes  kept  in  better 
Order  than  yl  Accounts  are  here,  and  there  haue  been  coppies 
of  all  Bonds  and  Certificates  sent  into  England  every  year, 
severall  Bonds  put  in  Suit,  and  all  of  them  bear  a  Condition 
to  return  Certificat  w*4n  12  months."  ^ 

•  *  C.  O.  1/62,  20  xi. 

*  On  March  12,  1688,  on  the  information  of  Mein  that  the  John  of 
London  had  transgressed  the  laws  of  trade,  the  Maryland  Council  ordered 
a  special  court  for  the  trial  of  this  vessel  and  its  cargo.  C.  O.  5/739>  PP- 
141-145- 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  CAROLINAS 

The  economic  aims  of  the  proprietors  —  Foundation  of  South  Carolina  — 
Its  development  —  Piracy  —  Character  of  North  Carohna  —  The 
New  England  traders  —  Attempts  to  collect  the  1673  export  duties  on 
tobacco  —  The  Culpepper  rebelUon. 

Prior  to  the  eighteenth  century  the  economic  importance 
of  the  Carohnas  was  but  sHght,  and  as  yet  there  were  mani- 
fest but  faint  indications  of  that  later  development,  which 
was  to  transform  both  North  and  South  Carolina,  especially 
the  latter,  into  most  valuable  and  highly  esteemed  mem- 
bers of  the  British  Empire.  For  forty  years  or  so  their 
growth  was  slow;  and,  although  tentative  experiments  with 
various  products  had  been  made,  the  real  path  leading  to  their 
ultimate  prosperity  had  not  as  yet  been  disclosed.  During 
this  period,  these  small  undeveloped  settlements  had  but 
little  trade  and  commerce,  and  contributed  only  slightly 
to  the  wealth  of  the  commercial  empire  that  was  being  con- 
solidated under  the  regulations  of  the  parliamentary  colonial 
system  by  the  energy  and  activity  of  the  English  merchants 
and  colonial  planters.  While,  however,  the  early  history 
of  the  Carolinas  constitutes  an  unimportant  chapter  in  the 
actual  evolution  of  the  Empire,  the  steps  leading  to  the 
settlement  of  this  region  throw  a  flood  of  light  on  the 
colonial  policy  of  the  era. 

N  177  (2) 


. 


s 


178 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


In  1663,  a  number  of  prominent  men,  most  of  whom  were 
closely  identified  with  the  work  of  commercial  and  colonial 
expansion  —  such  as  the  Earl  of  Clarendon,  Lord  Berkeley, 
Lord  Ashley,  Sir  William  Berkeley,  and  Sir  John  Colleton— 
received  from  Charles  II  the  grant  of  a  large  tract  of  land 
reaching  from  Virginia  to  Spanish  Florida.^  As  in  the  case 
of  the  charters  of  the  first  Stuarts,  the  government  expected 
the  patentees  to  produce  within  their  dominion  commodities 
such  as  England  was  obliged  to  purchase  from  her  European 
rivals.  In  order  to  stimulate  such  production,  the  govern- 
ment exempted  from  the  payment  of  the  EngHsh  customs 
duties  all  silks,  wines,  currants,  raisins,  capers,  wax,  almonds, 
oils,  and  olives  imported  thence  for  seven  years  from  Septem- 
ber 29,  1667.2  None  of  these  products  could  be  raised  in 
England,  but  all  had  to  be  imported,  in  the  main  from  the 
Mediterranean  countries  in  Europe.  It  was  largely  in  the 
hope  of  developing  a  national  source  of  supply  that  the 
Carolina  charter  was  issued.  This  list  contained  no  one 
of  the  commodities  already  afforded  by  the  existing  EngHsh 

*  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  p.  27 ;   C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  427. 

2  This  privilege  was  confirmed  in  the  second  Carolina  charter  of  1665. 
No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  p.  108;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  loii.  In  addition,  tools 
shipped  to  Carolina  for  the  use  of  the  planters  were  exempted  from  the 
payment  of  the  English  export  duties.  In  1663,  the  proprietors  granted 
the  full  benefit  of  these  immimities  to  intending  settlers.  No.  Ca.  Col. 
Rec.  I,  pp.  43-46;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  536.  See  also  C.  C.  1675-1676, 
p.  145.  In  1667,  it  was  also  suggested  that  'the  King  grant  the  first  lad- 
ing of  every  ship  built  in  the  said  country  custom  free'  and  that  'said  in- 
habitants may  trade  with  goods  of  their  own  growth  in  ships  built  there 
into  any  port  in  Christendom,  which  he  conceives  will  be  the  only  means 
to  put  that  Colony  into  a  flourishing  condition.'    C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  146. 


THE  CAROLINAS 


179 


colonies.  The  new  settlements  were  expected  to  avoid  such 
products  as  sugar  and  tobacco,  in  order  not  further  to  depress 
their  price.  This  point  was  significantly  emphasized  in  the 
statements  of  the  proprietors. 

In  the  hope'of  obtaining  settlers  for  the  proposed  colony, 
the  patentees  at  the  outset  looked  in  the  main  to  Barbados, 
where  the  large  plantation  system,  based  ever  more  exclu- 
sively on  negro  slave  labor,  was  driving  away  the  smaller 
capitalists  and  the  white  laborers.  One  of  the  proprietors. 
Sir  John  Colleton,  was  a  prominent  Barbadian,  thoroughly 
conversant  with  the  situation  in  that  colony.  In  1663,  the 
proprietors  wrote  to  the  Governor,  Lord  Willoughby,  and 
also  to  Thomas  Modyford  and  Peter  Colleton  in  Barbados, 
that  they  had  heard  that  a  number  of  people  were  desirous 
of  emigrating  to  Carolina,  and  pointed  out  that  its  soil  was 
proper  for  such  commodities  as  England  consumed  in  great 
quantities,  but  which  were  not  raised  in  the  already  estab- 
lished colonies.  If  wine,  oil,  currants,  raisins,  and  silks  were 
successfully  produced  in  Carolina,  they  further  said,  "the 
money  of  the  nation  that  goes  out  for  these  things  wilbe 
Keept  in  the  Kinges  Dominions  and  the  planting  part  of  the 
people  imploy  there  time  in  planting  those  comodyties  that 
will  not  injure  nor  overthrow  the  other  plantations  which 
may  very  well  happen,  if  there  be  a  very  great  increase  of 
sugar  workes  and  more  Tobacco,  Ginger,  Cotton  and  in- 
dicoe  made  then  the  world  will  vent."  ^  The  proprietors 
represented,  with  greater  truthfulness  than  they  themselves 

^  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  pp.  46-48;  So.  Ca.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.  V,  pp.  13-15; 
C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  547,  549. 


I 


^ 


i8o 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


^  1 


I 


M 


k 


probably  realized,  that  the  enterprise  was  for  the  King's 
and  nation's  service  more  than  for  their  own,  and  as,  in 
addition,  they  included  such  influential  men  as  the  Earl  of 
Clarendon  and  the  Duke  of  Albermarle,  the  support  of  the 
government  was  readily  secured.     Charles  II  instructed 
Lord  Willoughby,  and  also  the  Governor  of  the  Bermudas, 
not  to  hinder  people  from  emigrating  to  Carolina,  stating 
that,  as  this  country  was  fit  for  commodities  not  produced 
in  any  other  of  the  English  dominions,  "therefore  such 
removall  will  be  noe  wayes  preiudiciall  but  rather  advan- 
tageous to  our  settled  plantations,  by  lessening  the  excessive 
increase  of  those  Comodities  which  they  produce,  which 
through  their  abundance  have  abated  the  prices  to  such 
inconsiderable  sums  that  our  Subiects  (Planters  or  Traders 
therein  concerned)  cannot  subsist  by  their  labour  and  stock 
employed  upon  the  same."  ^    Thus  Carolina  was  to  be  a 
colony   supplying   England  with  the   typical   products  of 
southern  Europe,,  such  as  were  not  obtainable  in  any  of  the 
other  English  colonies.    The  actual  course  of  development, 
however,  by  no  means  corresponded  with  the  anticipations 
of  those  projecting  the  enterprise. 

At  the  time  of  the  issue  of  the  Carolina  charter  there  was 
already  established  within  the  bounds  of  the  province, 
on  Albemarle  Sound,  a  small  commimity  composed  in  the 
main  of  settlers  from  adjacent  Virginia.  The  proprietors, 
however,  paid  but  little  attention  to  this  region  and  devoted 

^  So.  Ca.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.  V,  p.  6 ;  Lefroy,  Bermudas  H,  pp.  199,  200 ; 
C.  C.  1 661-1668,  no.  576.  On  the  attempts  to  found  settlements  from 
Barbados,  see  A.  S.  Salley,  Narratives  of  Early  Carolina,  pp.  33-61,  77-108. 


THE  CAROLINAS 


181 


their  chief  efforts  to  developing  the  more  southerly  portion 
of  their  grant.  During  the  initial  years,  several  unsuccess- 
ful attempts  at  settlement  were  made,  but  as  nothing  per- 
manent had  been  accompHshed  by  1669,  the  need  of  more 
comprehensive  measures  was  realized.  Thereafter,  the  guid- 
ing spirit  among  the  proprietors  was  Ashley,  the  future  Earl 
of  Shaftesbury.  Adequate  funds  were  contributed  to  pur- 
chase ships  and  supplies,  and  some  emigrants  were  secured 
in  England  and  Ireland,  as  events  had  shown  that  no  reli- 
ance could  be  placed  on  securing  a  sufl&cient  number  of 
settlers  from  Barbados  and  the  Bermudas.^  In  1670,  as  a 
result  of  this  expedition,  was  founded  a  settlement  on  the 
Ashley  River,  which  formed  the  nucleus  of  the  future  South 
Carolina.^  Glowing  reports  of  the  fertility  of  the  soil  were 
sent  to  England.  In  1670,  Governor  Sayle  and  the  Council 
wrote  that  'there  was  never  a  more  hopeful  design  set  on 
foot,'  and  that  flax,  wine,  tobacco,  silk,  sugar,  and  all  sorts 
of  English  grain  could  be  produced  in  plenty.'  The  planters 
from  Barbados  claimed  that  as  good  ginger  and  cotton  could 
be  grown  there  as  in  the  West  Indies,  and  some  successful 
experiments  were  made  with  these  commodities  and  with 
tobacco.  At  the  outset,  however,  the  settlers  were  in  the 
main  fully  occupied  in  raising  provisions,  for,  as  Governor 
West  wrote  in  1671,  it  was  'the  life  of  a  new  settlement  to 
provide  in  the  first  place  for  the  belly.'  Peas,  Indian  corn, 
and  wheat  were  planted,  but  not  enough  was  raised  to  feed 


*  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  19. 

2  E.  McCrady,  South  Carolina,  1670-1719,  pp.  114-128. 

»  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  85,  86;  So.  Ca.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.  V,  pp.  175,  176. 


I    I 

i 

1 1' 


1    'I 


■iJi 


Hi 


182 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


the  infant  colony,  and  the  deficiency  was  supplied  by  pro- 
visions imported  from  the  other  colonies,  expecially  from 
Virginia  and  the  Bermudas.^ 

In  order  to  hasten  the  process  of  settlement,  in  1671  the 
proprietors  sent  out  a  ship,  the  Blessing,  with  detailed  in- 
structions to  its  commander,  Captain  Halstead.^  On  his 
arrival  in  Ashley  River,  he  was  to  secure  a  cargo  of  timber, 
pipe-staves,  and  other  commodities  fit  for  the  Barbados 
market,  and  while  in  Carolina  he  was  to  investigate  its 
economic  resources,  and  especially  to  inquire  if  there  were 
a  supply  of  large  mast  trees  growing  near  the  water  whence 
they  could  readily  be  transported  to  England.  After  dis- 
posing of  his  cargo  in  Barbados,  Halstead  was  to  take 
passengers  thence  for  Carolina,  which  the  proprietors 
emphatically  stated  was  their  main  object.  In  addition, 
Halstead  was  to  procure  sugar  and  nun,  which  he  was  to 
exchange  in  Virginia  for  cattle  and  provisions  and  with 
these  he  was  to  return  to  Ashley  River,  whence  again  he  was 
directed  to  proceed  with  lumber  to  Barbados  for  passengers. 
Finally,  he  was  to  secure  a  cargo  of  braziletto  wood  in  the 
Bahamas,  or,  if  this  were  unobtainable,  he  was  to  return  to 
England  with  cedar  wood  from  Carolina.  The  proprietors 
had  not  lost  sight  of  their  underlying  purpose  of  finding  for 
the  nation  new  sources  of  supply,  and  instructed  Halstead 
to  learn  the  best  methods  of  raising  silk,  tobacco,  indigo, 

1  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  8s,  86,  88,  89,  167,  168,  206-208 ;  So.  Ca.  Hist. 
Soc.  Coll.  V,  pp.  175,  176,  188;  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  pp.  206-208. 

2  C.  O.  5/286,  pp.  68-71 ;  So.  Ca.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.  V,  pp.  318-322 ;  C.  C. 
1669-1674,  pp.  211,  212.    Cf.  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  210,  296,  313. 


THE  CAROLINAS 


183 


cotton,  and  other  products  of  a  similar  nature.  Further,  he 
was  to  inform  the  settlers  that,  as  the  proprietors  aimed  at 
their  thriving  and  to  that  end  had  spent  considerable  sums, 
"soe  wee  expect  from  them  faire  and  punctuall  Dealeing  in 
repaying  us  for  what  we  Let  them  have."  ^ 

Though  Halstead  proved  himself  an  unsatisfactory  agent,^ 
a  number  of  people  were  attracted  to  the  new  settlement, 
and  by  1672  it  counted  somewhat  over  four  hundred  souls.' 
Enthusiastic  reports  about  the  economic  resources  of  the 
country  continued  to  be  forwarded  to  England,  but  naturally 
no  wine,  silk,  indigo,  or  oil  could  be  produced  until  the  press- 
ing problem  of  the  colony's  food  supply  was  solved.*  For  a 
number  of  years  the  settlement  was  dependent  upon  supplies 
furnished  by  the  proprietors,  and  until  it  became  self-sup- 

^  The  idea  of  developing  new  sources  of  supply  is  well  illustrated  in  a  con- 
temporary book,  whose  author  claimed  that  Carolina  could  and  actually  did 
produce  wines,  oil,  silk,  cotton,  indigo,  ginger,  tobacco,  etc.  "It  is  believed," 
he  fiurther  stated,  "that  here  may  be  made  of  the  three  first,  viz.  WineSy 
Oyl,  and  Silk,  such  great  abimdance,  to  theirs  and  this  Kingdoms  enrich- 
ment that  besides  what  we  shall  use  our  selves,  we  may  have  wherewith 
to  furnish  Forrain  Parts."  Richard  Blome,  A  Description  of  the  Island  of 
Jamaica  (London,  1672),  p.  128. 

2  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  620. 

'  So.  Ca.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.  V,  pp.  376-383 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  319-321. 
In  167 1,  Ashley  instructed  Halstead  to  encourage  men  at  all  places  where 
he  touched  to  remove  to  Carolina,  but  to  forbear  to  invite  the  poorer  yet 
awhile,  "for  we  find  ourselves  mightily  mistaken  in  endeavouring  to  get  a 
great  number  of  poor  people  there,  it  being  substantial  men  and  their  fami- 
lies that  must  make  the  plantation  which  will  stock  the  country  with  negroes, 
cattle,  and  other  necessaries,  whereas  others  rely  and  eat  upon  us."  C.  C. 
1669-1674,  pp.  296,  297. 

*  Shaftesbury  Papers,  bundle  48,  no.  77 ;  So.  Ca.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.  V,  pp. 
376-383;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  254,  277-280,  319-321. 


^1 

li 


I 


i 


0 


.  I'( 


184 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


porting  there  was  no  possibility  that  any  of  the  advantages 
expected  from  the  enterprise  could  be  realized. 

In  the  course  of  time,  the  Carolina  proprietors  began  to 
tire  of  sending  tools  and  clothes  to  the  colony,  especially  as 
they  saw  no  prospect  of  any  return  on  the  ever  expanding 
amoimt  invested  in  the  enterprise.^  In  1674,^  they  sent 
to  Ashley,  now  Earl  of  Shaftesbury,  a  mass  of  correspond- 
ence recently  received  from  the  colony,  and  at  the  same  time 
asked  his  advice  how  'to  set  as  narrow  bounds  as  may 
be  to  expenses  and  yet  order  that  all  may  not  be  lost  by  a 
total  desertion  and  ruin  of  the  settlement  at  Ashley  river.' 
There  was  reason  to  think,  they  added,  that  these  settlers 
no  longer  needed  or  expected  supplies  of  provisions  from 
them,  but  they  did  not  see  how  the  colony  could  subsist 
unless  they  furnished  them  with  clothing,  tools,  and  arms 
imtil  'the  products  of  their  labour'  should  draw  trade  there. 
They  further  said  that  the  settlers  might  possibly  be  already 
able  to  make  considerable  returns  in  tobacco,  which  they 
claimed  was  equal  to  the  Spanish  product,  and  that  within 
a  short  time  not  immoderate  quantities  of  cotton  and  indigo 
might  be  expected. 

Accordingly,  on  June  10,  1675,^  Shaftesbury  wrote  to 
the  Governor  and  Council  at  Charles  Town:  "You  can- 
not be  ignorant  of  the  particular  care  I  have  taken  of 
you  and  your  Setlem'  ever  since  you  first  sate  downe  upon 
Ashley  River.    And  how  the  rest  of  the  Lords  Proprietors 

*  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  578,  579. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  620-622 ;   So.  Ca.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.  V,  pp.  454,  455. 

3  So.  Ca.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.  V,  pp.  466-468;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  240,  241. 


THE  CAROLINAS  185 

C-3  / 

have  been  perswaded  by  the  hopes  I  had  that  their^  ex- 
penses would  not  be  endless  to  be  out  a  greater  ^umifij^  of 
Money  in  Carrying  on  that  Planta^on  and  sending  you  sup- 
pl]^es  th^n  they  at  first  designed  or  could  have  imagined." 
Last  year,  he  continued,  when  their  expectations  of  returns 
grew  weary,  "hav^ing  received  from  you  neither  any  be- 
ginning of  paym*  nor  any  faiite  or  probable  Propos2^s  how 
they  may  in  tvme  be  reimbursed,"  I  induced  them  to  con- 
sent to  a  new  method  of  supplying  you.  It  was  expected 
that,  when  we  had  put  the  continuance  of  sending  you  nec- 
essaries in  so  settled  an  order,  "you  at  least  would  have 
considered  of  some  way  of  making  returns  to  us,  and  given  us 
some  ace*  that  wee  might  have  seene,  that  you  had  taken  it 
into  your  thoughts."  Their  failure  to  do  so,  he  concluded, 
had  discouraged  the  Lords  Proprietors,  who  had  "just  cause 
to  apprehend  that  by  the  Expense  of  9  or  £10,000  we  have 
purchased  nothing  but  the  charge  of  maintaineing  on  5  or 
600  people  who  expect  to  live  upon  us." 

Shaftesbury's  letter  of  admonition  to  the  colony  must 
not  be  construed  too  literally.  The  proprietors  were  well- 
informed  men  of  afifairs,  and  could  not  have  expected  any 
immediate  returns  on  their  investment.  Past  experiences, 
with  which  they  must  have  been  familiar,  had  shown  con- 
clusively that  such  colonial  enterprises  were  very  costly 
and,  as  a  rule,  financially  disastrous.  At  best  it  was  only 
in  the  distant  future  that  some  income  might  reasonably 
be  expected.  It  was  in  connection  with  a  similar  enterprise, 
in  which  two  of  the  Carolina  proprietors.  Lord  Berkeley  and 
Sir  George  Carteret,  were  engaged,  that  Governor  Nicolls 


III 


l^j 


0 


ii 


i86 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


of  New  York  had  remarked  some  ten  years  before  this  : 
"It  will  cost  them  20,000  lb  before  it  will  yield  a  pemiy,  and 
their  childrens  children  may  reap  the  profitt."  ^  In  view  of 
their  unquestionable  realization  of  the  hazardous  and  ex- 
pensive character  of  such  undertakings,  it  must  be  inferred 
that  the  proprietors  were  to  a  great  extent  actuated  by 
patriotic,  as  distinct  from  purely  personal,  motives. 

Theirs  was  not,  however,  the  idealistic  patriotism  of 
Cecil  Rhodes,  who  two  hundred  years  later  was  ready  to 
sacrifice  his  own  fortime  and  also  the  surplus  of  the  great 
diamond  company  which  he  was  managing,  in  order  to  fur- 
ther his  dream  of  northern  expansion,  from  which  person- 
ally he  could  expect  no  direct  pecuniary  profit.^  In  part, 
the  difference  was  due  to  the  personal  equation;  in  part, 
it  resulted  from  fundamentally  distinct  theories  of  colonial 
expansion.  Neither  Shaftesbury,  nor  any  one  of  his  asso- 
ciates, was  built  on  Rhodes's  gigantic  Unes,  or  was  so  con- 
sistently and  constantly  under  the  sway  of  one  all-absorbing 
ideal.  Rhodes  wanted  Central  Africa  as  a  "breathing- 
space"  for  England's  expanding  population,  becoming  more 
and  more  congested  within  the  narrow  limits  of  its  island 
home.  Shaftesbury,  on  the  other  hand,  recognized  that 
England  herself  needed  a  larger  population,  and  favored  the 
encouragement  of  immigration.  It  was  not  as  an  outlet  for 
England's  surplus  numbers  that  he  and  his  associates 
founded  Carolina,  but  in  developing  the  economic  resources 

1  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  p.  105 ;  N.  J.  Col.  Doc.  I.  p.  48 ;  C.  C.  1661-1668, 
no.  1095. 

2  Sir  Thomas  E.  Fuller,  Cecil  John  Rhodes,  pp.  68,  69. 


THE  CAROLINAS 


187 


of  the  new  settlement  they  sought  both  to  increase  the 
commerce  of  England  and  to  create  new  sources  of 
supply.  In  addition,  the  Carolina  proprietors  hoped  for 
some  income  on  the  funds  expended,  and,  as  the  colony  paid 
no  attention  to  their  legitimate  demands,  they  tightened 
their  purse-strings. 

By  the  end  of  the  decade  the  colony  had,  however,  taken 
firm  root.^  Provisions  were  produced,  not  only  in  sufficient 
quantity  for  home  consumption,  but  also  for  export  to 
the  West  Indies.  In  1680  to  1682  there  was  a  considerable 
influx  of  new  settlers,  composed  in  the  main  of  French 
Huguenots  and  English  dissenters.^  During  these  two 
years  the  population  about  doubled  itself,  and  at  the  lat- 
ter date  numbered  roughly  2500.^  A  few  years  before  this, 
in  1679,  the  proprietors  stated  that  they  had  expended  on 
the  enterprise  £17,000  to  £18,000.'*  But  on  this  relatively 
large  sum  they  had  as  yet  received  virtually  no  return, 
although  some  provision  was  being  made  for  a  future 
proprietary  revenue  by  the  establishment  of  annual  quit- 
rents  of  one-penny  an  acre.^  Nor  was  there  as  yet  any 
indication  that  the  colony  would  one  day  answer  the  fun- 
damental economic  ends  of  its  settlement.^ 

*  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  60. 

2  McCrady,  South  Carolina,  1670-17 19,  pp.  193,  194. 
'  T.  A.,  Carolina  (London,  1682),  pp.  38,  39.    The  name  of  the  author  of 
this  pamphlet  is  generally  given  as  Thomas  Ashe. 

*  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  336. 

^  R.  F.,  The  Present  State  of  CaroHna  (London,  1682),  p.  19;  T.  A., 
CaroUna  (London,  1682),  p.  39 ;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  646 ;  C.  C.  1685-1688, 
pp.  10-12. 

« C/.  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  60. 


ll 


i88 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Much  had  been  hoped  from  the  Huguenot  immi- 
grants who  were  expected  to  produce  wine,  oil,  silk,  and 
such  other  things  as  England  was  forced  to  purchase 
from  foreign  nations.^  The  various  pamphleteers  of  the 
day,  many  of  whom  wrote  with  the  special  purpose  of  at- 
tracting settlers,  extolled  the  natural  resources  of  the  col- 
ony and  predicted  for  it  a  brilliant  future.  One  of  these 
writers,  who  had  been  clerk  on  board  H.M.S.  Richmond 
which  carried  over  some  of  the  Huguenots  in  1680,  reported 
that  Carolina  would  shortly  prove  a  most  beneficial  colony, 
and  that  many  people  were  attracted  there  by  the  climate 
and  "the  likelyhood  of  Wines,  Oyls  and  Silks,  and  the  great 
Variety  of  other  Natural  Commodities."  He  spoke  hope- 
fully of  these  experiments,  and  of  the  prospect  that  CaroUna 
would  "in  a  little  time  prove  a  Magazine  and  Staple  for 
Wines  to  the  whole  West  Indies^  ^  Another  writer  in  the 
same  year,  1682,  stated  that,  in  addition  to  grain  of  all  sorts. 
South  CaroUna  produced  abimdance  of  beef  and  pork,  and 
that  attempts  were  being  made  to  raise  wine,  oil,  cotton, 
silk,  tobacco,  hemp,  and  flax.  These,  together  with  hides, 
wool,  pitch,  tar,  and  cordage,  he  predicted,  would  be  the 
staple  commodities  of  the  colony.^    The  attempts  to  produce 

1  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  321,  328,  336,  340,  341,  351,  364,  366,  367,  428, 
435 ;  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  pp.  242-244;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  825,  826. 

2  T.  A.,  Carolina,  or  a  Description  of  the  Present  State  of  that  Country 
(London,  1682),  preface  and  pp.  8-10.  In  the  same  year,  another  pam- 
phleteer, Samuel  Wilson,  said  that,  "besides  the  great  profit  that  will  be 
made  by  the  vast  heards  of  Cattle  and  Swine,  the  Country  appears  to  be 
proper"  for  wine,  oil,  silk,  tobacco,  indigo,  cotton,  flax  and  hemp,  pitch 
and  tar,  etc.    A.  S.  Salley,  Narratives  of  Early  Carolina,  pp.  174-176. 

3  R.  F.,  The  Present  State  of  Carolina  (London,  1682),  pp.  7-10. 


THE  CAROLINAS 


189 


these  commodities,  especially  silk  and  oil,  were  persistently 
pursued,^  but  led  to  no  practical  results.  Prior  to  the  Revo- 
lution of  1688/9,  the  only  noteworthy  exports  from  this 
settlement  to  Europe  were  cedar  wood  and  furs.  In  1687, 
the  proprietors  stated  that  these  shipments  did  not  amount  in 
value  to  £2000  yearly.  As  in  the  first  decade  of  Massachu- 
setts' history,^  the  basic  industry  of  the  colony  was  the  pro- 
duction of  foodstuffs  — grain  of  all  kinds,  beef,  and  pork  — 
which  were  exchanged  with  the  incoming  settlers  for  clothes 
and  tools.  In  addition,  provisions,  and  also  some  pitch, 
tar,  and  lumber,  were  shipped  to  the  English  West  Indies, 
whence  in  return  were  imported  sugar,  molasses,  rum,  and 
ginger.3 

Although  the  colony's  commerce  was  far  from  extensive, 
It  was  of  sufficient  importance  to  make  it  advisable  for  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Customs  to  appoint  in  1673  officials 
to  see  to  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  of  trade  and  naviga- 
tion.* If  inconspicuousness  is  an  indication  of  inactivity, 
these  officials  apparently  had  Httle  to  do  until  toward  the 
very  end  of  this  period.    In  1685,  one  George  Muschamp 

1  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  662.  See  also  Samuel  Wilson,  An  Account  of  .  .  . 
CaroUna  (London,  1682),  pp.  17, 18 ;  A  New  and  Most  Exact  Account  .  .  . 
of  CaroUna  (DubHn,  1683),  p.  S;  CaroUna  Described  (DubUn,  1684), 
p.  26. 

2  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  284,  285. 

^T.  A.,  Carolina  (London,  1682),  pp.  38,  39;  C.  O.  324/s,  ff.  5-7; 
C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  425,  426. 

'  In  1673,  Joseph  West  was  appointed  CoUector,  and  WiUiam  Owen 
ComptroUer  and  Surveyor.     Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1672-1675,  p.  427.     In 
1683,  James  Wych  was  appointed  CoUector  and  Surveyor.    Treas.  Books 
Out-Letters,  Customs  8,  f.  233.  ' 


11! 


|| 


190 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


was  appointed  Collector  of  the  Customs,^  and  at  the  same 
time  the  proprietors  wrote  to  Governor  Joseph  Morton  to 
take  care  that  the  laws  of  trade  were  observed  and  to  re- 
member that  any  neglect  on  his  part  made  him  liable  to 
a  penalty  of  £1000.^  Muschamp,  however,  encountered 
some  difl&culties.  In  1687,^  he  wrote  to  his  superior  officers 
in  England  that  he  feared  it  would  be  difficult  to  enforce  the 
Navigation  Act  in  South  Carolina,  as  last  week  he  had 
under  peculiar  circiunstances  lost  an  action  for  illegal  trade. 
He  admitted  that  the  evidence  in  this  case  was  not  quite 
clear;  but  he  asserted  that  it  was  declared  that  even  if  it 
"had  been  never  Soe  evident  they  would  have  pleaded  the 
Benefit  of  their  charter  against  me ;  pretending  that  it 
gives  them  full  Power  to  Trade  with  Scotland  and  Ireland, 
and  Likewise  that  the  Natives  of  the  Said  Countries  have 
Liberty  to  transport  their  owne  Productions  and  Manufac- 
tures in  their  shipps,  Navigated  with  Scotch  Men,  which  I 
am  sure  is  directly  contrary  to  the  Letter  of  the  Law." 

This  claim  was  referred  to  the  Attorney-General,  who 
naturally  held  that  it  was  without  warrant  of  law.  In  addi- 
tion, an  explanation  was  demanded  from  the  proprietors, 
who  stated  ^  that  they  conceived  that  no  one  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  colony  was  guilty  of  asserting  such  a  claim,  and 
that  they  had  constantly  ordered  the  Governor  and  Council 
to  obey  the  Acts  of  Trade  and  Navigation  and  to  assist 

*  Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  10,  f.  46. 

2  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  92. 

3  C.  O.  1/60,  19;   ibid.  324/s,  ff.  2-4;   C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  353,  354. 

4  C.  0.  324/5,  ff.  5-7 ;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  425,  42tS. 


THE  CAROLINAS 


191 


Muschamp.  Furthermore,  they  remarked  that  they  did  not 
know  of  any  inducement  that  would  attract  Scottish  and 
Irish  traders  to  South  Carolina,  as  the  inhabitants  had 
"hardly  overcome  y^  Want  of  Victualls  &  nott  as  yett 
produced  any  Commodities  fitt  for  y^  Markett  of  Europe 
butt  a  few  Skins  they  purchase  from  the  Native  Indians  & 
a  little  Cedar  w'^  w^^  they  help  to  fill  y^  Ship  that  brings 
y^  Skins  for  London,"  where  was  their  best  market.^  At 
the  same  time,  the  proprietors  ordered  Governor  James 
Colleton  to  inquire  into  the  subject  of  Muschamp's  com- 
plaint and  to  remove  from  office  in  the  Court  of  Admiralty 
such  men  as  had  advanced  the  claim  that  the  charter  ex- 
empted the  colony  from  the  provisions  of  the  Act  of  Naviga- 
tion. Further,  Colleton  was  instructed  carefully  to  execute 
the  laws  and  to  send  them  quarterly  returns  of  the  shipping 
trading  to  the  colony,  as  well  as  other  documents  bearing 
on  such  matters,  so  that  they  could  deliver  them  to  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Customs.^ 

This  solicitous  care  of  the  proprietors  in  enforcing  the 
law  was  due  to  a  desire  not  further  to  offend  the  English 
government,  which  had  already  been  annoyed  by  reports 
that  pirates  were  being  harbored  in  South  Carolina  and  by 
the  disorderly  conduct  of  the  northern  settlement  on  Albe- 
marle  Sound.    As  a  consequence  thereof,  the  Attorney- 

^  Muschamp  claimed  that,  as  four-fifths  of  the  crew  of  the  vessel  in  ques- 
tion were  Scottish,  it  was  not  legally  navigated.  This  claim  was,  however, 
of  questionable  validity.  See  ante,  Vol.  I,  pp.  90,  91.  According  to  the 
proprietors,  this  ship  had  been  trading  at  the  Leeward  Islands,  and  had 
come  to  CaroUna  for  repairs. 

2  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  451,  452. 


I 


i 


i 


I  'I 


I 


i  i 


I 


192 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


General  had  been  instructed  in  1686  to  proceed  by  quo  war- 
ranto against  the  charters  of  CaroUna  and  the  Bahama 
Islands.^  Two  years  before  this,  in  1684,  Governor  Lynch 
of  Jamaica,  who  was  conducting  a  vigorous  campaign  against 
piracy,  complained  that  his  efforts  were  being  thwarted  by 
the  asylum  given  to  the  buccaneers  in  CaroHnajNew  England, 
and  the  other  continental  colonies.  In  especial,  he  com- 
plained of  the  aid  given  in  South  Carolina  to  Jacob  Hall, 
one  of  the  two  English  captains  who  in  1683  had  partici- 
pated in  the  raid  on  Vera  Cruz  by  the  Hispaniola  filibusters 
under  the  lead  of  Vanhom  and  de  Graff.^  In  his  vigorous 
reply  on  behalf  of  the  Carolina  proprietors,  the  Earl  of 
Craven  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  ^  that,  on  his  return  from 
Vera  Cruz,  Hall  had  stopped  for  a  few  days  in  CaroKna  to 
wood  and  water,  but  that  as  he  had  acted  under  the  com- 
mand of  Vanhom,  who  had  a  commission  from  the  French, 
and,  as  it  was  not  known  that  it  was  illegal  for  Enghshmen 
to  serve  under  foreign  powers,  no  attempt  had  been  made  to 
seize  him.  Craven  added  that  he  had  never  heard  of  but 
one  other  pirate  in  Carolina,  and  that  he  and  his  accom- 
plices were  'hung  in  chains  at  the  entrance  to  the  port, 
where  they  hang  to  this  day.'  In  addition,  he  wrote  that 
the  King's  instructions  to  all  the  colonies  to  pass  a  law 
against  pirates  similar  to  that  of  Jamaica  had  been  sent  to 
the  colony,  and  that  he  had  no  doubt  but  that  such  a  law 


1  P.  c.  Cal.  n,  p.  92. 

2  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  598.    On  this  expedition,  see  Haring,  The  Buc- 
caneers in  the  West  Indies,  pp.  241-243. 

'  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  642. 


^ 


THE  CAROLINAS 


193 


would  be  speedily  passed.^  At  the  same  time,  the  pro- 
prietors instructed  the  Governor,  Sir  Richard  Kyrle,  to 
seize  all  pirates  and  to  secure  the  enactment  of  the  desired 
law.^ 

In  1685,  Carolina  passed  such  an  Act,^  but  it  naturally 
could  not  be  effectively  enforced  in  the  unfrequented  bays 
of  this  sparsely  settled  country,  and  it  was  apparently  not 
construed  very  strictly  even  where  there  was  a  regular 
government.  The  Secretary  of  the  province,  Robert  Quarry, 
while  temporarily  in  charge  of  affairs,  had  been  suspected 
of  complicity  with  the  pirates,  and  shortly  afterwards 
Governor  Joseph  Morton  was  accused  of  allowing  two 
buccaneers  to  bring  a  Spanish  prize  to  South  CaroHna.^ 
James  Colleton,  a  member  of  the  distinguished  Barbadian 
family  and  a  brother  of  one  of  the  proprietors,  was  appointed 
Governor  in  1686,^  and  was  instructed  to  investigate  these 
matters.^  In  addition,  the  proprietors  wrote  to  him  of 
some  Portuguese  brigantines  laden  with  sugar,  which  had 
been  captiured  by  English  pirates  and  brought  to  South 
Carolina,  where  they  were  condemned  by  collusion  between 
Quarry  and  the  pirates  as  unfree  ships.  In  this  manner  a 
technically  legal  title  was  secured.     "Wee  see,"  the  propri- 

*  On  these  instructions,  see  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  pp.  347,  348 ;  C.  C. 
1681-1685,  p.  592 ;  Conn.  Col.  Rec.  Ill,  pp.  336,  337. 

2  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  645,  646. 

« Hughson,  The  Carolina  foates,  p.  21.  See  also  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp. 
12,  92,  178. 

*  C.  O.  5/288,  ff.  75,  76;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  153,  154,  178,  179,  243. 
» C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  233. 

«  C.  O.  5/288,  ff.  103-105 ;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  338. 

o  (2) 


i 


v| 


HI 


{! 


(I 


ii 


•1 


■I 


194 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


etors  commented,  that  Capt.  Quarry  hath  had  too  great 
a  hand  in  these  Transactions  for  which  Reason  you  are,  if 
you  see  Cause,  to  put  him  out  of  all  Offices  he  holds  by 
our  Choice  or  Comission  from  us."  As  a  result  of  these 
charges,  and  for  other  causes.  Quarry  was  removed  from 
office,^  but  apparently  he  was  able  fully  to  vindicate  him- 
self, for  subsequently  he  was  not  only  restored  to  the  favor 
of  the  proprietors,  but  was  also  appointed  to  high  office 
in  the  imperial  colonial  service. 

At  this  time,  the  proprietary  and  charter  colonies  were  in 
bad  repute  with  the  English  government,  mainly  because  of 
the  difficulty  encountered  in  enforcing  the  regulations  of  the 
colonial  system  within  them.  The  claim  advanced  in  South 
Carolina  that  the  charter  exempted  them  from  the  provisions 
of  the  Acts  of  Trade  and  Navigation,  combined  with  the  col- 
ony's friendly  attitude  towards  pirates,  had  furnished  addi- 
tional proof  that  the  Carolina  proprietors  were  not  able 
effectively  to  control  the  settlements  within  their  grant.  This 
had  already  been  clearly  demonstrated  in  the  case  of  the  small 
community  on  Albemarle  Sound,  out  of  which  developed  the 
future  North  Carolina.  The  bulk  of  the  settlers  there  had 
come  from  Virginia,  which  was  close  by ;  and,  as  was  natural 
under  these  circumstances,  they  turned  to  tobacco  planting 
as  their  main  means  of  gaining  a  livelihood.  Since  access 
to  the  harbors  of  this  region  was  barred  by  shifting  sands, 
it  was  dangerous  for  the  larger  ships  employed  in  the  trans- 
Atlantic  trade  to  venture  into  these  inlets;  and  hence  the 
bulk  of  the  tobacco  was  carried  in  small  vessels  to  Virginia 

*  C.  C.  1 685-1 688,  pp.  451,  452. 


Vv 


THE  CAROLINAS 


195 


and  New  England.^  The  New  England  traders  were  espe- 
cially prominent  and  virtually  controlled  the  commerce  of 
this  small  settlement.  Although  the  proprietors  had  paid 
but  scant  attention  to  the  Albemarle  community  and  had 
even  treated  it  with  something  akin  to  systematic  neglect, 
they  opposed  these  close  commercial  relations  with  New 
England.  In  1676,  they  instructed  the  Governor  and  Coun- 
cil to  do  all  in  their  power  to  divert  this  trade  to  the  mother 
country,  "itt  beinge  certaine  Beggary  to  our  people  of  Albe- 
marle if  they  buy  goods  at  2^  hand"  and  sell  their  tobacco 
and  other  commodities  at  lower  prices  than  those  prevailing 
in  England.  In  addition,  they  were  ordered  to  send  an 
exact  account  of  the  depth  of  water  in  the  inlets  where  ships 
could  load  and  unload,  "for  this  has  been  so  concealed  and 
uncertainly  reported  here  as  if  some  persons  amongst  you 
had  joined  with  some  of  New  England  to  engross  the  poor 
trade  you  have  and  keep  you  still  under  hatches."  ^ 

In  the  eighth  decade  the  tobacco  crop  of  this  region 
amounted,  roughly  speaking,  to  about  two  thousand  hogs- 
heads or  one  million  pounds.^  Although  some  of  this  was 
shipped  directly  to  England,*  a  large  proportion  was  trans- 
ported to  the  other  colonies,  and  on  this  part  a  duty  of  one- 
penny  a  pound  was  payable  accordmg  to  the  Act  of  1673. 
The  collection  of  this  duty  would,  however,  have  meant  a 
complete  alteration  of  the  course  of  the  settlement's  trade, 


1  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  pp.  242-244;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  351- 

2  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  pp.  230-232 ;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  496. 

3  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  pp.  247,  265,  266. 
*  Ibid.  pp.  322,  323. 


1 1 

1 


H 


>i 


I 


»■ 


196 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


which  would  have  been  diverted  from  New  England  to  the 
mother  country.  The  attempt  to  do  so  led  to  serious  com- 
motions, in  which  not  unnaturally  the  New  England  traders 
played  a  conspicuous  part. 

In  1675  ^  were  sent  to  the  Governor  at  Albemarle  com- 
missions for  one  Copley  as  Collector  of  the  Customs  and  one 
Birch  as  Comptroller,  with  instructions  to  appoint  others 
in  their  stead  in  case  the  men  designated  were  not  in  the 
colony.  As  the  orders  unplied  the  collection  of  the  one- 
penny  duty,  they  met  with  considerable  opposition,  it  being 
declared  that  as  a  result  the  New  England  traders  would 
double  the  price  of  their  wares.  "Upon  w-  the  people  were 
very  mutinous  and  reviled  &  threatened  y''  Members  off  the 
Counsell."  The  duty  was,  however,  collected  for  a  short 
time;  but  in  1676,  while  the  coimtry  was  in  arms  to  resist 
the  Indians,  the  Governor  was  forced  to  remit  to  the  New 
England  traders  three  farthings  in  every  penny.^ 

As  the  affairs  of  the  colony  were  thus  "in  ill  order,"  the 
proprietors  removed  the  existing  Governor  and  appointed 
in  his  place  Thomas  Eastchurch  with  instructions  to  check 
the  New  England  trade,  which  they  claimed  "ruin'd  the 
place."  ^  On  the  same  ship  with  Eastchurch  went  Thomas 
Miller  with  a  commission  appointing  him  Collector  of  the 

*  The  warrants  for  their  appointment  were  dated  May  15,  1674.  Cal. 
Treas.  Books,  1672-1675,  p.  522. 

2  No.  Cal.  Co.  Rec.  I,  pp.  291-293. 

3  The  proprietors  asserted  that  the  New  England  traders  "ventur'd  in, 
in  small  Vessels  &  had  soe  manadg'd  their  affayres  that  they  bought  their 
goods  att  very  lowe  rates,  eate  out  &  ruin'd  y®  place,  defrauded  y**  King 
of  his  Customes  &  yet  govern'*  the  people  ag*  their  owne  Interest." 


THE  CAROLINAS 


197 


Customs.^  The  vessel  stopped  at  one  of  the  West  Indian 
islands,  where  Eastchurch,  "lighting  upon  a  woman  y* 
was  a  considerable  fortune  took  hold  of  the  oppertunity 
marryed  her,"  and  sent  Miller  to  Carolina  to  settle  the 
affairs  there  "against  his  comeing."  Miller  assumed  the 
administration,  and,  according  to  the  proprietors,  "did  many 
extravagant  things  making  strange  limitations  for  y^  choyce 
of  y*  Parliam*  gitting  poV  in  his  hands  of  laying  fynes  w*"*" 
tis  to  be  feared  he  neither  did  nor  meant  to  use  moderately 
sending  out  strange  warrants  to  bring  some  of  y*"  most  con- 
siderable men  of  y-  Country  alive  or  dead  before  him, 
setting  a  sume  of  money  upon  their  heads."  ^  In  addition, 
as  Collector  of  the  Customs,  Miller  enforced  the  laws  of 
trade  strictly,  and,  together  with  his  deputies,  seized  a 
considerable  quantity  of  tobacco  as  well  as  some  European 
goods  that  had  been  illegally  imported.^  As  a  result,  the 
New  England  trade  was  greatly  hampered,  and  in  charac- 
teristically frontier  fashion  the  community  sought  its  own 
remedy."* 

1  November  16,  1676,  warrant  for  the  appointment  of  Thomas  Miller 
as  Collector  at  Albemarle.    Cal.  Treas.  Book^,  1676-1679,  p.  373. 

2  C.  O.  391/3,  ff.  118  et  seq.;  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  pp.  278-284,  286-289, 
326-328. 

3  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  pp.  255,  264-267;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  875,  876; 
Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  5,  ff.  154,  163. 

*  From  the  account  of  Henry  Hudson,  one  of  Miller's  deputies  in  the 
customs  service,  it  appears  that  the  main  cause  of  the  rebeUion  was  the 
desire  to  continue  unchecked  their  dealings  with  the  New  England  traders. 
According  to  him,  the  Assembly  convened  after  the  uprising  was  instructed 
by  the  people  "to  insist  upon  a  free  traid  to  transport  their  tobacco  where 
they  pleased  and  how  they  pleased  without  paying  any  duty  to  y®  King." 
No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  pp.  272-274;  C.  O.  1/44,  20  ii. 


\\ 


fl 


198 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


''I 


Towards  the  end  of  1677,  the  people  rose  in  rebellion 
against  the  existing  authorities.  The  leaders  of  the  out- 
break were  John  Culpepper,  who  a  few  years  before  had  left 
South  Carolina  with  a  bad  record  ;  ^  Captain  Zachariah 
Gillam,  a  prominent  trader,  who  had  been  closely  identified 
with  the  formation  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  )^  Valen- 
tine Bird,  the  former  Collector,  who  had  permitted  the  ship- 
ment of  tobacco  on  which  the  export  duty  of  1673  had  not 
been  paid  ;  ^  and  the  New  England  traders,  who  objected  to 
this  duty.^  Miller  was  imprisoned,  and  the  duties  collected 
by  him,  as  well  as  the  seized  goods,  were  taken  from  him  by 
the  rebels.^  In  his  place,  they  appointed  Culpepper  to  act 
as  Collector  ®  and  formed  a  temporary  government,  which 
remained  in  power  for  about  a  year  and  a  half  J  Culpepper 
refused  to  allow  Timothy  Biggs,  the  royal  Comptroller  and 
Surveyor  of  the  Customs  at  Albemarle,  to  enter  and  clear 
vessels,  and  exercised  all  the  powers  of  his  imprisoned 
predecessor.^ 

When  the  proprietors  heard  of  these  revolutionary  pro- 
ceedings, they  induced  one  of  their  members,  Seth  Sothell, 
to  undertake  the  task  of  straightening  out  the  situation.    At 

^  So.  Ca.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.  V,  p.  285. 

2  A.  C.  Laut,  The  Conquest  of  the  Great  Northwest  I,  pp.  102,  106,  125, 
166  ;  C.  P.  Lucas,  History  of  Canada  (Part  I,  New  France),  pp.  185,  186. 

3  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  pp.  256,  257,  265,  266;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  462. 

*  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  pp.  286-289. 

^  C.  O.  391/3,  f.  120;  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  pp.  1371,  1372. 

•  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  478.  ^  Ihid.  pp.  372,  373. 

®  C.  O.  1/44,  19,  19  i ;  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  pp.  242,  275-277 ;  C.  C.  1677- 
1680,  p.  478;  Sept.  28, 1678,  warrant  for  the  appointment  of  Biggs,  in  Cal. 
Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  p.  11 19. 


THE  CAROLINAS 


199 


the  same  time,  pending  an  investigation  of  Miller's  conduct, 
Sothell  was  also  temporarily  appointed  Collector  by  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Customs.^  While  on  his  way  to  assimie 
the  governorship,  Sothell  was  taken  prisoner  by  the  Bar- 
bary  pirates.  During  the  interval  necessary  to  secure  his 
redemption  from  captivity,  the  proprietors  nominated  a 
temporary  governor,  and  with  this  commission  went  Robert 
Holden,  who  was  appointed  Collector  in  place  of  Sothell  by 
the  Customs  Board  in  England.^  Holden  soon  became 
involved  in  an  acrimonious  quarrel  with  Biggs,  the  royal 
Comptroller  of  the  Customs,  but  in  1680  the  Proprietors  re- 
ported that  all  was  peaceful,  "his  Maj'^^'  Customes  quyetly 
paid  by  the  People,"  and  that  the  colony  had  taxed  itself 
to  repay  that  part  of  the  duties  used  by  it  during  the  late 
disorders.^ 

Being  anxious  to  prevent  a  suit  for  the  voiding  of  their 
charter,  the  proprietors  understated  the  gravity  of  the  situa- 
tion. The  Albemarle  settlement  was  a  t>^ical  frontier 
community,  in  which  neither  the  imperial  nor  the  proprietary 
officials  could  exercise  any  effective  authority  in  opposition 
to  the  wishes  of  the  inhabitants.  The  colony  was  generally 
in  bad  odor.  In  1681,  Lord  Culpeper  said  that  it  4s  and 
always  was  the  sink  of  America,  the  refuge  of  our  renegades ; 
and  till  in  better  order  it  is  a  danger  to  Virginia.'  *  Btit  slight 
control  was  exercised  during  the  ten  years  following  the 

^  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  p.  1093. 

^  Ihid.  p.  1266. 

3  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  pp.  286-289,  318-321,  326-328. 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  155. 


%\ 


n 


n 


M 


200 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Culpepper  rebellion,  and  little  is  known  of  the  exact  course 
of  events. 

In  1682,  Albemarle  had  from  2000  to  3000  inhabit- 
ants and  in  general  the  country  was  better  settled  than 
that  around  Charles  Town.^  As  heretofore  the  main  crop 
was  tobacco,  but  in  addition  some  beef  and  pork  were  ex- 
ported to  the  West  Indies.^  There  was  little  direct  com- 
mercial intercourse  with  England,  and,  as  Virginia  in  1679 
prohibited  the  importation  of  tobacco  from  Carolina,^  the 
bulk  of  this  crop  was  shipped  to  New  England.*  There  is  no 
evidence  that  the  plantation  duties  on  these  shipments  were 
paid,  and  everything  points  to  the  opposite  conclusion.  In 
the  first  place,  this  one-penny  tax  would  have  been  an  in- 
superable burden  on  this  trade.  Furthermore,  it  would 
have  yielded  a  considerable  income,  the  tax  on  1,000,000 
pounds  of  tobacco  amoimting  to  somewhat  over  £4000. 
As  no  sima  in  any  degree  commensurate  with  this  was  ac- 
coimted  for,  the  only  conclusion  that  can  be  drawn  is  that 
the  customs  ofiicials  were  completely  unable  to  enforce  the 
law  in  face  of  the  popular  opposition  to  it.^ 

*R.  F.,  The  Present  State  of  CaroKna  (London,  1682),  p.  4;  C.  O. 
324/s,  ff.  5-7 ;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  425,  426. 

2  R.  F.,  The  Present  State  of  Carolina  (London,  1682),  p.  7. 

3  Hening  II,  p.  445. 

<  C.  O.  324/5,  ff.  5-7 ;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  425,  426. 
5  For  the  various  customs  officials  during  these  years,  see  Treas.  Books, 
Out-Letters,  Customs  5,  f.  309 ;  8,  ff.  i,  175. 


CHAPTER  X 

NEWFOUNDLAND 

The  fishing  regulations  —  Disputes  between  the  settlers  and  the  English 
fishermen  —  Agitation  for  the  appointment  of  a  royal  governor  —  The 
decision  to  remove  the  settlers  —  Sir  John  Berry's  reports  reopen  the 
question  —  The  planters  are  allowed  to  remain,  but  no  governor  is 
appointed  —  The  colony  and  the  laws  of  trade  —  New  England's  trade 
to  Newfoimdland  —  Development  of  the  fishery. 

England's  chief  interest  in  Newfoundland  arose  from  the 
fisheries,  which  were  highly  valued  as  a  source  of  naval  and 
commercial  strength.  A  considerable  part  of  the  fish  caught 
was  consumed  in  the  Catholic  countries  of  southern  Europe, 
and  these  exports  constituted  an  important  item  in  England's 
balance-sheet  as  drawn  by  the  economists  of  that  day. 
Furthermore,  the  fisheries  employed  a  large  number  of  ves- 
sels and  were  a  nursery  of  seamen  for  the  royal  navy  and 
the  mercantile  marine.  At  the  time  of  the  Restoration, 
there  existed  in  Newfoundland  several  small  English  com- 
munities, the  struggling  remnants  of  the  various  futile 
attempts  at  effective  settlement  made  in  the  first  half  of 
the  century.^  These  survivors  of  the  abortive  schemes  of 
Guy,  Mason,  Vaughan,  Baltimore,  Kirke,  and  others  were 
reinforced  by  English  fishermen,  who  chose  to  remain  in  the 
island  throughout  the  bleak  and  frigid  winter.  In  the  aggre- 
gate their  numbers  were  insignificant,  and,  though  scattered 

^  J.  D.  Rogers,  Newfoundland,  pp.  53-70. 

201 


i 


i 


fi^:  ' 


202 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


lit 


Ik 


1 


I'M 


in  about  thirty  small  distinct  settlements,  they  were  all 
grouped  in  one  section  of  the  island,  and  thus  gave  to  the 
southeastern  part  of  Newfoundland,  from  Trepassey  Bay 
to  Cape  Bonavista,  the  outward  semblance  of  an  English 
colony.  In  the  main,  however,  the  fishery  was  not  carried 
on  by  the  permanent  inhabitants,  but  by  the  fishermen 
who  annually  left  the  ports  of  western  and  southwestern 
England  for  this  purpose.  Between  these  fishermen,  gener- 
ally known  as  the  Western  Adventurers,  and  the  settlers, 
there  had  existed  bitter  rivalry  and  competition  ever  since 
the  days  of  the  Newfoundland  Company  of  i6io.^  After 
1660  this  friction  became  increasingly  acute. 

During  the  Interregnum,  the  rights  of  the  patentees  under 
the  Newfoimdland  charter  of  1637,  which  at  the  time  had 
superseded  all  previous  grants,  were  set  aside,  and  Commis- 
sioners were  appointed  by  the  home  government  to  admin- 
ister the  colony.^  The  restoration  of  the  monarchy  in  1660 
necessitated  a  readjustment  of  affairs  in  Newfoundland,  as 
it  did  elsewhere,  and  brought  up  the  question,  whether  the 
colony  there  should  be  continued  or  the  field  should  be  left  en- 
tirely to  the  English  fishermen.  The  government  was  saved 
from  the  necessity  of  an  immediate  decision  by  the  claims 
of  former  patentees.  Those  of  the  Kirkes  under  the  charter 
of  1637  were  not  admitted,  but  Lord  Baltimore  secured 
recognition  for  his  rights  under  the  patent  issued  in  1623 
to  his  father,  Sir  George  Calvert.^     Baltimore  appointed 

*  Beer,  Origins,  p.  290. 

*  J.  D.  Rogers,  op.  cit.  pp.  70-72 ;  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  370,  371. 
3  C.  C.  1574-1660,  pp.  481,  482;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  157. 


NEWFOUNDLAND 


203 


a  Deputy-Governor  for  his  province  of  Avalon,^  but  as  this 
region  was  not  coterminous  with  the  area  of  English  settle- 
ment in  Newfoundland,  civil  government  was  not  thereby 
established  over  all  the  inhabitants. 

For  the  regulation  of  the  fishing  industry,  the  Restoration 
government  adopted  with  one  additional  clause  the  pro- 
visions of  the  order  of  the  Court  of  Star  Chamber  issued  in 
1634,  which  had  been  embodied  in  the  charter  granted  in  the 
same  year  to  the  merchants  and  traders  to  Newfoimdland.^ 
This  order  and  charter  of  1634  —  the  so-called  Western 
Charter  —  provided  that  no  ballast  should  be  thrown  into 
the  harbors;  that  no  person  should  damage  the  stages, 
cook-rooms,  and  other  structures  required  in  the  fishery; 
that  no  person  should  "sett  fire  in  anie  of  the  woods"  or 
injure  them  by  rinding  the  trees ;  that  the  first  fishing  ship 
entering  any  harbor  should  be  the  admiral  thereof ;  that  no 
person  "doe  sett  vpp  anie  Tauern  for  selling  of  Wine,  Beare, 
or  strong  waters,  or  Tobaco  to  entertaine  the  fishermen  be- 
cause it  is  found  that  by  such  meanes  they  are  debauched" ; 
and,  finally,  that  the  mayors  of  the  fishing  towns  in  England 
and  the  Vice- Admirals  of  the  counties  wherein  they  were  sit- 
uated should  exercise  jurisdiction  respectively  over  offences 
committed  on  land  and  at  sea.  In  1 661,  these  regulations  were 
reissued  with  an  additional  proviso,  prohibiting  the  English 
fishermen  from  taking  to  Newfoundland  any  but  their  crew, 
"or  such  as  are  to  plant  and  do  intend  to  settle  there."* 


*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  385,  452,  1 109,  1666,  1729. 
2  C.  O.  195/2,  ff.  3,  4;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  192-197. 
8  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  374,  375 :  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  7. 


.'M 


' 


204 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


■| 


fi 


The  object  of  this  prohibition  was  to  prevent  the  transpor- 
tation of  such  men  —  the  so-called  boat-keepers  —  as  in- 
tended to  fish  in  small  craft  from  Newfoundland  as  a  base. 
If  conducted  in  this  manner,  the  fishery  would  obviously 
employ  fewer  ocean-going  ships  and  would  train  fewer  sail- 
ors.    It  was  feared  that  as  a  result  of  such  a  method  of  car- 
rying on  the  industry,  "when  this  present  Stock  of  Seamen  is 
worne  out,''  the  whole  trade  would  be  destroyed  "for  want 
of  supplies  of  Mariners."    Thus  inevitably  Newfoundland's 
value  as  a  source  of  sea  power  would  be  greatly  impaired.^ 
As  Baltimore's  interest  in  Avalon  was  rapidly  waning,  and 
as  the  detailed  regulations  issued  in  1661  were  inadequately 
enforced,  there  soon  arose  a  demand  that  the  Crown  appoint 
a  governor  for  the  colony.     It  was  urged  in  1667  that  this 
invaluable  fishing  trade  was  in  danger  of  being  lost  to  the 
French,  unless  "some  able  Person"  were  sent  as  governor 
and  the  harbors  were  fortified.  ^    The  fishermen  from  Plym- 
outh, Dartmouth,  and  other  English  ports,  however,  pro- 
tested that  their  trade  tended  "  greatly  to  the  Increase  of 
Mariners  and  Shipping  and  augmentation  of  his  Majesties 
Customs,"  that  heretofore  the  establishment  of  a  governor 
had  proved  very  pernicious,  and  that  such  an  ofiicial  would 
be  "an  Vseless  and  insupportable  Charge."  ^    During  the 
three  following  years  this  controversy  assumed  considerable 
proportions,  and  the  arguments  in  favor  and  against  the 
proposed  step  were  greatly  amplified. 

1  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  374,  375;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  589. 

*  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  448,  449. 

^Ibid.  pp.432,  433;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  1548,  1561. 


NEWFOUNDLAND 


205 


Those  in  favor  of  the  establishment  of  a  regular  govern- 
ment laid  especial  stress  upon  the  danger  of  the  French 
gaining  control  of  the  Newfoundland  fisheries  and  of  ousting 
the  Enghsh  from  them.^  The  French  had  no  settlement  on 
the  island  prior  to  1662,  but  in  that  year  they  estabhshed 
themselves  at  Placentia,  on  the  western  side  of  the  province 
of  Avalon,  not  far  from  the  Enghsh  colonists.  This  place 
they  proceeded  to  fortify,  and  the  claim  was  made  that  its 
safety  from  pirates  and  enemies  attracted  people  from  the 
adjacent  Enghsh  parts.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Enghsh 
harbors  were  totally  unprotected,  and,  as  no  government 
had  been  estabhshed  except  in  Baltunore's  province,  every- 
thing was  in  disorder  and  confusion. 

On  their  side  the  Enghsh  fishermen  ^  stated  that  their 
industry  was  not  very  prosperous,  and  recommended  that, 
instead  of  appointing  a  governor,  the  settlers  should  be 
removed  from  Newfoundland,  since  it  was  most  barren  and 
rocky  and  did  not  produce  any  commodities  such  as  the 
other  colonies  did.    If  this  were  done,  they  said,  the  trade 
in  provisions,  'now  mostly  supphed  from  New  England,' 
would  be  carried  on  by  the  English  fishing  ships.     They 
admitted  that  the  regulations  were  violated,  but  claimed 
that  the  inhabitants,   not  they,   were  at  fault.    Finally 
these  Adventurers  pointed  out  that  Sir  David  Kirke's  ad- 
ministration had  been  so  very  unsatisfactory  as  to  give 
little  encouragement  for  the  appointment  of  another  gov- 
ernor,  and  that,  if  the  colony  were  supported,  'the  trade  in 

*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  1666,  1729. 

*  Ibid.  no.  1732. 


/ 


fi': 


I    i 


WW 


206 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


a  few  years  will  be  removed  from  this  kingdom  and  become 
as  that  fishery  of  New  England,  which  at  first  was  main- 
tained from  these  parts,  but  is  now  managed  altogether 
by  the  inhabitants  of  New  England.'  This  was  by  far 
the  most  effective  argument  advanced. 

These  contentions  were  answered  by  the  leader  of  the 
movement  in  favor  of  a  regularly  organized  colony.  Captain 
Robert  Robinson,  R.N.,  who  in  1669  had  applied  for  the 
post  of  governor.^  He  pointed  out  that  Kirke's  maladmin- 
istration during  the  English  Civil  War  had  no  logical  bearing 
on  the  question,  since  the  same  bad  results  would  not  follow 
from  the  appointment  of  a  satisfactory  governor.  Under  the 
existing  conditions,  according  to  him,  the  constant  friction 
between  the  fishermen  and  the  planters  could  not  be  con- 
trolled, and  as  a  consequence  the  English  industry  was  already 
so  severely  handicapped  that  he  feared  the  French  would 
monopolize  the  Newfoundland  fisheries.  France,  he  said, 
employed  in  this  trade  400  ships  and  18,000  men,  as  opposed 
to  England's  300  ships  and  15,000  men.  Hence,  if  France 
should  gain  complete  control  of  the  industry,  England  would 
lose  a  valuable  nursery  of  seamen  and  a  large  yearly  trade 
credit,  'for  which  is  not  carried  out  of  the  kingdom  100  /. 
per  annum.'  ^  Furthermore,  if  the  French  should  add  New- 
foundland to  Canada  and  Nova  Scotia,  they  would  become 
exceedingly  dangerous  neighbors  to  New  England,  New 
York,  and  Virginia. 

The  English  government  was  not  convinced  by  the  ex- 

1  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  537,  538;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  635. 

*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1731 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  147-149. 


NEWFOUNDLAND 


207 


treme  arguments  of  either  party,  and  in  1670  merely  decided 
not  to  appoint  a  governor.^  It  was  realized,  however,  that 
something  had  to  be  done,  since  the  existing  state  of  affairs 
was  most  unsatisfactory.  In  addition,  in  1670,  the  English 
fishermen  complained  that  in  spite  of  the  order  of  1661  a 
great  number  of  passengers  were  still  carried  to  Newfound- 
land for  the  purpose  of  fishing  there,  and  prayed  that  this 
be  stopped.  The  matter  was  referred  to  the  Council 
for  Plantations,  which  early  in  1671  suggested  the  addition 
of  several  new  clauses  to  the  existing  regulations.^  These 
recommendations  ^  were  adopted  by  the  government,  and 
provided  that  no  alien  be  permitted  to  take  bait  or  to  fish  in 
Newfoundland  between  Cape  Race  and  Cape  Bonavista; 
that  no  inhabitant  should  cut  down  any  trees,  erect  any 
houses,  or  live  within  six  miles  of  the  sea-shore ;  *  that  the 
planters  should  not  take  possession  of  any  of  the  fishing 
places  before  the  arrival  of  the  ships  from  England ;  that 
the  regulations  of  1661  be  amended  so  that  in  future  the 
English  ships  were  to  be  forbidden  to  take  to  Newfound- 
land any  but  their  crews,  and  that  every  fifth  man  thereof 
had  to  be  "a  Greene  Man";  that  such  vessels  should  give 
bond  to  obey  the  preceding  regulation  and  to  bring  back 
to  England  their  entire  crew.  These  new  regulations  were 
decidedly  hostile  to  the  further  growth  and  even  to  the 
continued  existence  of  the  colony.    The  enforcement  of  the 

1  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  544;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  635. 

2  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  143, 144;  p.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  555,  556. 
8  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  558-563 ;  C.  O.  195/2,  f.  7- 

*  An  order  to  this  effect  had  already  been  issued  in  1637,  but  it  had  never 
been  enforced.    P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  559 ;   C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  504,  505. 


m 


I 


208 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


clause  prohibiting  the  settlers  from  living  within  six  miles  of 
the  shore  would  have  made  their  further  continuance  in  the 
island  impossible,  and,  even  if  this  regulation  were  ignored, 
the  future  growth  of  the  colony  would  be  hampered  by  the 
fact  that  the  EngKsh  ships  were  prohibited  from  bringing 
over  new  settlers.  In  fact,  it  was  the  half-formed  purpose 
of  the  government  to  break  up  the  existing  settlements  and 
to  encourage  the  inhabitants  to  remove  to  Jamaica,  St. 
Kitts,  or  to  some  of  the  other  EngHsh  colonies.^ 

Partly  in  order  to  protect  the  fishermen,  but  partly  also 
in  order  to  enforce  these  regulations  and  those  issued  in  1661, 
it  became  customary  at  this  time  to  send  a  convoy  of  the 
navy  with  the  fishing  fleet  from  England.^  The  Duke  of 
York  3  was  instructed  in  1671  to  give  orders  to  all  captains 
"of  Convoyes  yearly  appointed  by  his  Majesty  for  securing 
the  fishery  Trade  there  "  to  assist  the  admirals  of  the  various 
harbors  in  preserving  the  place,  and  to  report  in  detail  on 
the  number  of  ships  engaged  in  fishing,  the  quantity  of  fish 
caught,  and  the  number  of  inhabitants. 

It  naturally  proved  impossible  to  enforce  the  stringent 
order  forbidding  settlement  within  six  miles  of  the  sea-shore. 
In  167 1,  Captain  Davis,  in  command  of  one  of  the  convoy 
ships,  reported  that  this  clause  had  aroused  great  complaints, 
and  that  he  feared  the  inhabitants,  'being  so  afifrighted  with 
this  order  for  their  removing,'  would  repair  to  the  French. 


^  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  565. 

^Cf.  ibid.  p.  544;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  635. 
annually  only  from  1675  on. 
3  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  563-565. 


Convoys  were  appointed 


NEWFOUNDLAND 


209 


In  general,  he  said,  the  chief  trouble  came  from  the  English 
fishermen;  they  destroyed  the  fishing-stages  in  order  to 
provide  fuel  for  their  home  voyage,  and  they,  to  save  pro- 
visions, at  the  end  of  the  season  shipped  their  seamen  to 
New  England.^  Shortly  after  this,  in  1672,  England  be- 
came involved  in  war  with  the  United  Provinces,  and  it  was 
only  three  years  later,  after  peace  had  been  concluded, 
that  attention  could  again  be  paid  to  the  Newfoimdland 
problem. 

In  February  of  1675,  a  petition  urging  the  Crown  to  appoint 
a  governor  was  referred  to  the  Lords  of  Trade,  who  during 
the  following  months  examined  a  mass  of  documents  bear- 
ing on  the  question  and  held  a  number  of  hearings  at  which 
the  parties  interested  presented  their  views  in  considerable 
detail.^  The  appointment  of  a  governor,  and  also  the 
further  existence  of  the  colony,  were  opposed  by  the  English 
fishermen.  On  their  behalf,  it  was  contended  that  the 
island  was  not  suitable  for  settlement.  In  this  connection 
was  cited  a  proverb  current  in  the  English  fishing  ports : 
"If  it  were  not  for  Wood,  Water,  and  Fish,  Newfoundland 
were  not  worth  a  Rush."  They  maintained  that,  with  two 
exceptions,  the  ports  in  Newfoundland  could  not  be  defended 
by  fortifications  such  as  those  who  wanted  a  governor  had 
suggested,  and  moreover  that  such  defences  were  not  neces- 
sary, since  the  English  possessions  were  adequately  pro- 

^  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  257.  Cf.  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1730.  This  docu- 
ment is  obviously  entered  under  a  wrong  date. 

2  C.  O.  391/1,  ff.  3-15;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  177,  179,  187-189, 191,  192, 
197-199 ;  C.  C.  1699,  pp.  596-601 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  619 ;  Fleming  MSS. 
(H.M.C.  1890),  pp.  117,  118. 

P  (2) 


I( 


111 


i 


2IO 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


tected :  in  winter,  by  the  ice  which  barred  the  way  to  all 
foes ;  in  summer,  by  the  large  fishing  fleet.  It  was  further 
asserted  that  the  industry  was  greatly  handicapped  by 
the  inhabitants,  who  destroyed  the  woods  and  the  fish- 
ing-stages after  the  departure  of  the  English  fishermen, 
and  who  took  early  possession  of  the  best  fishing  places  and 
debauched  the  EngHsh  seamen  with  wine  and  brandy. 

Those  favoring  the  appointment  of  a  governor  laid  main 
stress  on  the  rapid  growth  of  the  French  fishery,  as  a  result 
of  which,  they  claimed,  the  English  had  lost  a  valuable 
market  in  France  and  were  apparently  about  to  lose  those 
of  Portugal,  Spain,  and  Italy  as  well.  They  maintained  that 
the  inhabitants  could  fish  more  cheaply  than  the  English 
fishermen,  and  that  the  only  way  to  regain  what  had  been 
lost  was  to  encourage  the  growth  of  the  colony,  which 
would  enable  the  English  to  undersell  the  French. 

The  English  fishermen,  however,  categorically  denied  the 
truth  of  these  statements.  They  contended  that  they 
could  fish  more  cheaply  than  the  inhabitants,  and  that  they 
kept  'a  superiority  over  the  French  in  all  the  foreign  mar- 
kets except  in  France,  where  we  vend  none.'  They  further 
pointed  out  that,  if  the  fishery  were  carried  on  by  a  colony, 
Newfoundland's  great  value  as  a  nursery  of  seamen  would 
vanish.  As  was  said  at  the  final  hearing:  "Should  wee 
indulge  a  Colony  at  Newfoundland,  the  more  it  prospered, 
the  lesse  would  it  be  to  the  advantage  of  Old  England,  but 
they  would  all  adhere  and  depend  on  New  England,  Yield- 
ing his  Maj^^  no  more  obedience.  Seamen  or  Shipps  at  his 
neede  then  those  doe,  and  bating  that  they  spoke  the  Eng- 


NEWFOUNDLAND 


211 


lish  Language  be  no  more  to  his  Maj*^  then  the  Inhabitants 
of  Island."  ^ 

This  argument  made  most  impression  on  the  Lords  of 
Trade  and  induced  them  to  adhere  to  the  existing  system. 
Before  reporting,  however,  they  instructed  the  EngUsh  fisher- 
men to  attend  them  in  order  to  advise  on  the  following 
points :  what  amendments  to  the  regulations  of  1671  should 
be  made;  what  instructions  should  be  given  to  the  com- 
manders of  the  convoys  so  as  to  increase  their  usefulness; 
what  disposition  should  be  made  of  the  planters  in  New- 
foundland.^ The  Adventurers  stated  that  the  existing  rules 
were  adequate,  but  that  they  did  not  know  what  encourage- 
ments to  offer  to  the  planters  to  withdraw  from  Newfound- 
land. They  said  that  they  were  unwilling  to  advise  their 
forcible  deportation,  though  nothing  but  their  removal  could 
cure  the  existing  evils,  but  they  suggested  that,  as  the  settle- 
ments depended  upon  provisions  brought  by  the  New  Eng- 
land ships,  a  man-of-war  should  be  appointed  to  seize  such 
vessels.     This  somewhat  inhimaan  expedient  did  not  meet 

*  C.  O.  391/1,  f.  15. 

2  The  Lords  of  Trade  also  wanted  information  about  the  French  method 
of  carrying  on  the  fishery.  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  201.  The  possible  removal 
of  the  English  settlers  brought  up  the  question  whether  or  no  England 
would  not  then  forfeit  her  title  to  Newfoundland.  Sir  Leoline  Jenkins 
reported  that,  if  the  French  took  possession,  grave  difficulties  might  result, 
as  the  general  law  of  nations  took  no  notice  'of  any  other  than  any  actual 
corporeal  gross  occupancy  of  a  place  with  its  dependencies.'  In  case  the 
English  settlers  were  to  be  withdrawn,  he  suggested  that  the  King  should 
declare  his  reasons  for  this  step,  stating  that  he  did  not  mean  to  depart 
from  his  rights  there,  and  that  the  French  government  should  be  formally 
and  officially  notified  to  this  effect.    Ihid.  pp.  203,  204. 


" 


I 


i 


i 


I 


212 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


with  the  approval  of  the  Lords  of  Trade.  They  agreed, 
however,  to  recommend  that  the  commander  of  the  convoy 
should  order  the  planters  to  remove  six  miles  from  the 
shore,  that  he  should  bring  to  England  such  as  wanted  to 
come  and  should  tell  those  who  preferred  to  go  to  the 
other  colonies  that  orders  had  been  given  for  their  kind 
reception  there,  and  finally  that  he  should  threaten  those 
who  would  not  obey  the  charter  with  forcible  removal 
thereafter.^ 

This  careful  investigation  had  taken  three  months'  time, 
during  which  the  available  facts  were  carefully  studied. 
But  as  the  colony's  side  of  the  controversy  was  inadequately 
represented,  the  report  which  the  Lords  of  Trade  handed 
in  on  April  15,  1675,  was  strongly  in  favor  of  the  EngHsh 
fishermen.    Therein  ^  the  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council 
pointed  out  that  the  EngKsh  fisheries  were  decKning  as  a 
result  of  several  factors.    In  the  first  place,  they  said,  the 
French  had  of  recent  years  appHed  themselves  energeti- 
cally to  this  industry,  with  the  result  that  they  had  ousted 
the  English  from  their  own  market  and  were  competing 
with  them  in  those  of  neutral  countries.    In  the  second 
place,  the  fisheries  on  the  New  England  coast  were  m- 
creasing,  which  affected  adversely  those  at  Newfoundland. 
Thirdly,  the  English  fishermen  had  suffered  severely  during 
the  wars  of  the  past  twenty  years  and  besides  fish  was  no 
longer  so  plentiful.    Finally,  the  planters,  in  direct  violation 
of  the  charter,  lived  within  six  miles  of  the  shore,  destroyed 

*  C.  C.  1 67 5-1 676,  pp.  204,  205. 

*  p.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  621-625. 


i 


NEWFOUNDLAND 


213 


the  woods  and  whatever  structures  the  fishermen  left  be- 
hind them,  took  possession  of  the  best  places  before  the  ships 
arrived  from  England,  sold  wine  and  brandy  to  the  seamen 
and  induced  them  to  remain  in  the  country,  "while  their 
Familyes  do  thereby  become  Burthens  to  their  respective 
Parishes  at  home."  The  Lords  of  Trade  then  stated  that  in 
their  opinion  the  appointment  of  a  governor  would  not  cure 
any  of  these  evils.  They  pointed  out  that  as  the  planters 
numbered  between  eight  hundred  and  a  thousand  ^  and  were 
scattered  in  twenty-five  different  harbors,  between  which 
there  was  no  communication  either  by  sea  or  land  during 
the  winters  when  these  abuses  were  committed,  a  governor 
would  be  powerless.  Nor,  even  if  the  fishery  could  stand 
the  expense,  was  the  appointment  of  a  governor  and  the 
erection  of  forts  necessary  for  purposes  of  defence,  since  the 
ice  in  winter  and  the  fishermen  in  summer  were  adequate, 
as  "that  place  wiU  allwayes  belong  to  him  that  is  superior 
at  Sea."  Furthermore,  they  reported  that  they  were  op- 
posed to  encouraging  a  colony  in  a  region  so  disadvantageous 
on  account  of  its  rigorous  climate  and  barren  soil,  and  be- 
cause the  settlers  chiefly  consumed  "the  Products  of  New 
England,  the  Shipping  of  which  Country  furnish  them  with 
French  Brandy,  and  Madera  Wines  in  exchange  for  their 
Fish,  without  depending  for  any  supply  from  hence ;  And 
we  had  reasons  to  presume  that  if  the  Climate  and  Soyle 
could  favor  a  Colony,  they  would  rather  adhere  to  New 
England,  and  in  time  tread  in  the  same  stepps,  to  the  losse 

1  According  to  Sir  John  Berry,  the  planters  numbered  in  1675, 1655  men, 
women,  and  children.     C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  275. 


I 


'41  It 


II 


214 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


of  those  many  advantages,  which  at  present,  by  the  Method 
things  are  in,  we  yet  enjoy."  They  then  added  that,  on  in- 
quiry, they  found  that  the  English  Adventurers  fished  more 
cheaply  than  the  planters,  and  that,  while  the  testimony 
was  conflicting  as  regards  French  competition,  they  had 
reached  the  conclusion  that  "the  English  do  in  generall 
still  preserve  a  superiority  in  the  Trade.  They  Catch  it  as 
cheap,  Cure  it  as  well,  come  as  early  to  Market,  can  there 
sell  as  dear,  and  afford  it  as  cheap  as  any  the  French  can  doe." 
They  therefore  recommended  that  "all  Plantation  and  In- 
habiting in  that  Country  be  discouraged,"  and  that  with  this 
design  the  commander  of  the  convoy  should  be  instructed 
to  declare  the  King's  pleasure  that  the  planters  should  leave 
voluntarily,  but  that  in  case  of  disobedience  he  should  pro- 
claim that  from  1676  on  the  six-mile  regulation  would  be 
strictly  enforced  and  all  offenders  against  it  would  be  seized 
and  deported.  This  report  was  approved  by  the  govern- 
ment, and  the  necessary  instructions  were  ordered  issued.^ 

Apparently  the  inchoate  colony  was  doomed  to  extinc- 
tion. It  was  saved  from  this  fate  by  the  courageous  frank- 
ness and  energy  of  Sir  John  Berry,  who  two  years  later  was 
again  to  prove  his  worth  in  pacifying  Virginia  after  the  tur- 
moil of  Bacon's  rebellion.  In  1675,  this  distinguished  naval 
officer  was  appointed  commander  of  the  Newfoundland  con- 
voy, and  his  investigations  of  conditions  there  convinced 
him  that  the  colonists  had  been  grievously  maligned  and  the 
government  grossly  misled  by  the  English  fishermen.  Once 
assured  of  this  fact,  he  insistently  brought  it  to  the  attention 
1  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  620-626;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  225,  226. 


NEWFOUNDLAND 


215 


of  the  English  government  and  sought  to  have  the  situation 
redressed.  On  July  24,  1675,  he  wrote  to  the  Secretary  of 
State,  Sir  Joseph  Williamson  ^  that  he  had  made  the  King's 
instructions  known  to  the  inhabitants  of  St.  John's  and  of 
the  other  harbors  between  Cape  Race  and  Cape  Bonavista, 
but  that  the  greatest  part  of  them  were  too  poor  to  remove 
unless  a  ship  were  sent  for  them.  The  planters  implored  for 
permission  to  remain,  he  said,  and  he  predicted  that,  if  they 
were  transported  to  England,  they  would  become  a  charge 
on  the  parishes.  Berry  then  stated  that  upon  inquiry  he 
had  found  that  most  of  the  charges  against  the  planters  were 
false.  The  fishing-stages  were  not  destroyed  by  the  planters, 
but  by  the  English  fishermen,  who  sold  the  wood  out  of 
which  they  were  built  to  the  ships  that  carried  the  cured 
fish  to  the  Mediterranean  markets.  Similarly,  it  was  not 
the  planters  who  induced  the  seamen  to  remain  in  Newfound- 
land, but  the  fishing  captains,  with  the  purpose  of  saving 
the  cost  of  their  passage  home  to  England.  In  addition,  he 
reported  that  the  New  England  vessels  did  not  bring  wine 
and  brandy  to  Newfoundland,  but  on  the  contrary  secured 
these  commodities  there.  Two  months  later.  Berry  wrote 
to  Williamson  confirming  these  statements  and  giving  con- 
siderable statistical  information  about  the  fisheries.^  The 
catch  of  the  English  ships  amounted  to  £116,000,  while 
that  of  the  planters,  numbering  1655  in  all,  was  valued  at 
£47,000.  From  this  it  was  apparent,  he  argued,  that  Eng- 
land would  suffer  greatly  if  the  intention  to  remove  the  in- 


m 


^  C.  C.  167 5-1676,  pp.  259-261. 
2  Ibid.  pp.  275,  276. 


If 


2l6 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


«i 


habitants  were  persisted  in,  especially  as  they  then  planned 
to  settle  among  the  French.  He  stood  in  admiration,  he 
wrote  sarcastically,  'how  people  could  appear  before  his 
Majesty  with  so  many  untruths  against  the  inhabitants,' 
and  asserted  that  the  fishery  would  never  be  properly  reg- 
ulated unless  a  governor  were  appointed,  'for  the  strongest 
treads  down  the  weakest/  Berry  likewise  wrote  in  the  same 
strain  to  Sir  Robert  Southwell,^  and  later  in  the  year  he 
again  wrote  to  Williamson  that  he  could  not  'but  pity  the 
poor  inhabitants,  considering  so  many  false  informations 
have  been  laid  to  their  charge.'  ^  At  the  same  time,  in  an- 
other carefully  prepared  memorial,^  he  again  urged  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  governor  and  predicted  that,  if  the  inhabit- 
ants were  removed,  the  French  would  enlarge  their  fisheries 
as  they  pleased  and  would  shortly  take  possession  of  Ferry- 
land  and  St.  John's,  two  of  the  chief  English  harbors. 

Berry's  statements,  which  were  confirmed,*  naturally  re- 
opened the  entire  question.^  The  order  for  the  removal  of 
the  planters  was  left  in  abeyance  and  the  appointment  of 
a  governor  was  reconsidered.  In  1677,  John  Downing, 
whose  father  had  been  the  Governor  of  the  colony  in  1640 
imder  the  Kirke  patent,®  petitioned  for  the  establishment  of 
a  regular  government,  complaining  that  the  English  fisher- 
men molested  the  planters  by  violently  taking  possession 

^  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  276,  277. 
» Ihid.  pp.  316,  317. 

*  Ihid.  pp.  329,  330. 

*  Ihid.  pp.  439,  504,  505. 

^  Ihid.  pp.  310,  311,  370,  371,  375,  439,  507. 
«  Ihid.  pp.  504,  505. 


i 


NEWFOUNDLAND 


217 


of  their  houses  and  goods,  and  that  they  further  threatened 
to  drive  them  away  from  the  country  on  the  strength  of  the 
six-mile  regulation  of  1671.  He  protested  that  this  pro- 
vision, which  had  never  been  enforced,  was  contrary  to  law, 
and  he  claimed  that,  if  the  inhabitants  were  driven  off,  the 
French  would  take  the  entire  island.^  In  response  to  this 
complaint,  the  government  ordered  the  English  fishermen 
"to  forbear  any  Violence  to  the  Planters  upon  pretence  of 
the  said  Westerne  Charter,  and  suffer  them  to  inhabite  and 
fish  according  to  the  Usage  of  the  years  last  past."  ^ 

In  addition,  in  the  fall  of  the  year,  the  commander 
of  the  convoy.  Sir  William  Poole,  reported  ^  on  the  whole 
situation.  If  matters  were  left  to  their  own  "managery," 
he  said,  conditions  would  not  become  better,  because  of 
the  ancient  animosity  between  the  planters  and  the  fisher- 
men. The  latter,  Poole  wrote,  grumbled  because  the  in- 
habitants were  still  allowed  to  remain  in  the  country,  though 
they  admitted  that  the  colony  was  of  very  great  use  to  them. 
According  to  him,  the  planters  occupied  themselves  during 
the  winter  in  felling  trees  and  sawing  them  into  boards  for 
making  oars  and  boats  to  be  used  in  the  fishing  season. 
In  their  houses  they  preserved  the  unused  salt  and  sheltered 
the  sick  fishermen.  Furthermore,  if  at  the  beginning  of  the 
season  the  winds  were  contrary,  the  English  fishermen  sent 
their  boats  ahead  to  take  possession  of  the  harbors,  where 

*  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  24,  38 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  700.    Cf.  C.  C.  167  7-1 680, 
pp.  76-78. 

2  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  39,  43  ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  701,  702,  706. 
2  C.  O.  1/41,  62 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  153,  154. 


11 


« 


H 


1 


1 


i> 


»! 


2l8 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


NEWFOUNDLAND 


219 


Ni 


the  rule  was,  "first  come,  first  served."  These  boats  arrived 
some  ten  or  twelve  days  before  the  ships,  and  during  this 
interval  the  inhabitants  gave  shelter  and  food  to  their  crews. 
To  insist  upon  the  planters  moving  six  miles  from  the  shore, 
he  concluded,  were  'worse  than  to  turn  them  off,  and  to  turn 
them  quite  off,  the  masters  of  the  fishery  cry  God  forbid.' 
Poole  assured  the  Lords  of  Trade  that  there  was  ample  room 
for  both  fishermen  and  planters,  "yet  they  would  fain  be  in- 
juring one  another." 

At  this  time  and  throughout  the  following  year,  1678, 
this  entire  question  was  actively  discussed  by  the  Enghsh 
government  and  evidence  of  the  same  general  nature  as  be- 
fore was  produced.^  No  conclusion,  however,  was  reached. 
In  1679,2  Charles  Talbot,  the  commander  of  that  year's 
convoy,  wrote  to  Sir  Robert  Southwell  that  the  planters, 
who  then  numbered  1700,  observed  the  rules  issued  in 
1671  better  than  did  the  Enghsh  fishermen,  who  destroyed 
the  stages  in  order  to  have  firewood  for  their  home  voyages, 
and  that,  'far  from  being  prejudicial,  the  trade  could 
not  be  so  well  managed'  without  the  inhabitants.  He 
added  that  these  permanent  settlers  could  not  under- 
sell the  English  fishermen,  and  that,  as  they  had  suffered 
so  many  abuses  at  their  hands,  some  had  removed  to 
the  French.  He  concluded  that  the  only  way  to  pre- 
serve England's  sovereignty  in  Newfoundland  and  to 
prevent  the  French  from  seizing  the  island  was  to  re- 

1  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  193,  i94i  214,  215,  348,  350,  355,  356;  P.  C.  Cal.  I, 
pp.  754,  755- 

2  c.  c.  1677-1680,  pp.  417-419- 


tain  the  existing  colony,  to  appoint  a  governor,  to  fortify 
some  of  the  harbors,  and  to  maintain  garrisons  in  them.  A 
few  months  after  this,  early  in  1680,  were  received  renewed 
petitions  for  an  established  government.^  The  matter  was 
again  taken  under  consideration  and  the  Lords  of  Trade  re- 
ported 2  that  the  planters  should  be  allowed  to  Hve  as  near 
the  shore  as  they  pleased,  that  settlers  should  be  permitted 
to  go  to  the  island,  that  a  governor  should  be  sent  to  New- 
foundland with  power  to  punish  the  planters  and  to  secure 
all  offenders  from  the  English  fishing  vessels  and  to  send  them 
for  punishment  on  board  their  ships  or  to  England. 

Thus  within  five  years  the  government  had  completely 
reversed  itself.  Instead  of  removing  the  planters,  the  colony 
was  not  only  allowed  to  remain,  but  additional  settlers  were 
permitted  to  go  there.  Furthermore,  it  was  decided  to  ap- 
point a  governor  and  to  erect  fortifications  in  the  island. 
Before  taking  this  step,  the  government  ordered  the  EngUsh 
fishermen  to  give  their  opinion  as  to  what  regulations  were 
necessary  for  the  settlement  of  such  a  governor.^  As  on 
many  other  occasions,  the  crucial  point  was  the  financial 
one.  It  was  determined  that  the  Enghsh  Exchequer  should 
not  bear  this  additional  expense,  but  that  it  should  be  ap- 

1  C.  O.  1/44,  27 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  477,  480,  483,  484,  491,  643 ; 
P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  882,  883. 

2  C.  O.  391/3,  f.  133;  C.  C.  1 67 7-1 680,  pp.  480,  481,483.  Ten  days 
thereafter,  the  Lords  of  Trade  somewhat  modified  this  by  agreeing  that  the 
planters  be  not  permitted  to  keep  any  buildings  or  gardens,  which  might 
disturb  the  fishery,  within  a  quarter  of  a  mile  of  the  shore.  C.  C.  1677- 
1680,  p.  490.    In  actual  practice,  however,  this  was  not  insisted  upon. 

3  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  887. 


vi 


It< 


i' 


220 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


portioned  among  the  inhabitants  and  the  fishermen.  But, 
as  no  satisfactory  arrangement  could  be  made,  a  governor 
was  not  appointed.^  There  was,  however,  no  longer  any 
idea  of  removing  the  settlers,  who  were  allowed  to  remain 
undisturbed  in  their  homes.  Under  these  imsettled  con- 
ditions, few  additional  immigrants  were  attracted,  and  the 
population  increased  but  slowly  from  1655  in  1675  to 
about  2000  in  1684.^  The  state  of  affairs  in  the  island 
remained  as  imsatisfactory  as  before.  The  friction  between 
the  planters  and  the  English  fisherman  continued,  and 
the  regulations  of  the  so-called  Western  Charter  of  1676,^ 
embodying  the  rules  of  1634,  1661,  and  1671,  were  flagrantly 
violated.  'Without  better  government  the  Colony  will 
come  to  an  end ;  all  is  confusion  till  the  man-of-war  comes,' 
reported  Captain  Jones,  R.N.,  in  1682.'*  The  government 
was  frequently  urged  to  carry  into  effect  its  decision  to 
appoint  a  governor,^  but  the  policy  of  drift  was  not  aban- 
doned until  nearly  two  generations  later. 

During  this  entire  controversy,  the  English  government's 
main  object  was  to  preserve  and  develop  the  Newfoundland 
fisheries  as  a  source  of  naval  and  conmiercial  strength. 
Everything  was  subordinated  to  this  end.  The  most  effec- 
tive argument  against  the  estabKshment  of  a  regularly 
organized   colony   was    that   the   fishery  would   then   no 

iC.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  612;  C/C.  1681-1685,  pp.  383,  403.  See  also 
J.  D.  Rogers,  Newfoundland,  pp.  85,  86. 

2  C.  O.  389/10,  ff.  1-6;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  189,  275,  276,  508,  509; 
C.C.i677-i68o,pp.  154,155,642;  CO.  1/38,91;  C.  O.  1/41,  62X;  CO. 
1/46,  78,  79.  '  C  C  1699,  p.  602. 

*  C  C  1681-1685,  p.  294.  ^  Ihid.  pp.  707-710;  C.  O.  1/54,  56. 


NEWFOUNDLAND 


221 


longer  be  carried  on  from  England  as  a  base,  but  would  be- 
come a  purely  colonial  enterprise  as  had  that  of  Massachu- 
setts. The  valuable  New  England  fisheries  in  no  way 
added  to  England's  sea  power.  The  dread  that  Newfound- 
land would  follow  the  course  of  New  England  was  ever 
present  in  the  minds  of  English  statesmen,  and  their  opposi- 
tion to  an  established  colony  was  primarily  due  to  the  fear  of 
losing  so  valuable  a  nursery  of  seamen.  It  was  only  when  it 
was  proven  that  the  planters  were  of  assistance  to  the  Eng- 
lish fishermen  and  could  not  undersell  them  that  the  plans 
for  their  removal  were  abandoned.  The  existing  settlements, 
while  not  encouraged,  were  countenanced,  and  emigration  to 
them  from  England  was  even  allowed.  But  no  steps  were 
taken  to  establish  civil  government  as  in  the  other  colonies, 
and  in  consequence  the  question  arose,  whether  or  no  New- 
foundland was  included  within  the  scope  of  the  laws  of 
trade  and  navigation. 

At  the  outset,  it  was  unquestionably  the  intention  of 
Parliament  that  the  trade  of  Newfoundland  should  be  sub- 
ject to  the  same  regulations  as  was  that  of  the  other  colonies. 
This  is  evident  from  the  clause  in  the  Staple  Act  of  1663, 
which  specifically  exempted  salt  for  Newfoundland  from 
the  prohibition  to  import  into  the  colonies  European  goods 
from  places  other  than  England.  At  this  time,  Baltimore  had 
an  organized  colony  on  the  island,  and  there  was  no  reason 
to  make  any  distinction  between  it  and  the  other  colonies. 
In  1 66 1  and  1662  were  seized  in  Newfoundland  several 
foreign  ships,  of  which  Baltimore's  Deputy-Governor  in 
Avalon  claimed  as  his  share  the  one-third  stipulated  in  the 


f 


ii 


,1 


!   I| 


«'•''' ^' 


222 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Act  of  Navigation.^  But  after  a  short  time,  Baltimore 
allowed  his  jurisdiction  to  lapse  and  was  no  longer  repre- 
sented by  a  governor,  and  as  the  English  Treasury  did  not 
appoint  any  customs  officials  in  Newfoundland,  there  was 
no  one  to  enforce  the  law  except  the  officers  of  the  navy 
in  command  of  the  convoys.  These  officers  prevented 
foreign  ships  from  trading  within  the  English  limits,  but 
they  were  not  entrusted  with  the  enforcement  of  the  laws 
as  a  whole.  This  lack  of  administrative  machinery  led  to 
several  inconveniences,  which  the  English  government  un- 
successfully sought  to  overcome  in  various  ways.  Finally, 
as  there  was  some  danger  that  Newfoundland  would  be- 
come a  free  port  through  which  prohibited  goods  might  be 
shipped  to  the  other  colonies,  the  English  government 
ordered  that  it  should  be  considered  as  outside  the  barriers 
of  the  English  colonial  system,  as  Tangier  had  been. 

In  accordance  with  the  prevailing  economic  views,  the 
government  insisted  that  the  English  fishing  ships  and  the 
additional  vessels  required  to  carry  the  cured  fish  to  market 
—  the  so-called  sack  ships  ^  —  should  be  victualled  and  sup- 
plied for  their  entire  voyage  in  England.^  These  orders 
could  not,  however,  be  enforced.  Provisions  were  bought 
in  Ireland,  where  in  a  number  of  instances  they  could  be 
secured  more  cheaply.    Furthermore,  as  salt  could  not  be 

^  C.  O.  1/16,  112,  113 ;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  172,  385,  386;  P.  C.  Cal.  I, 

PP-  339-341. 

^  In  1680,  the  fishing  fleet  niunbered  97  of  9305  tons  with  3922  men,  and 
the  sack  ships  99  of  8123  tons  with  11 57  men.  CO.  1/46,  78,  79.  See 
also  C.  O.  390/6,  ff.  1-6;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  710. 

'  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  545,  560. 


1' 


NEWFOUNDLAND 


223 


advantageously  procured  in  England,  these  ships  were  per- 
mitted to  buy  this  commodity  in   the  markets  of   con- 
tinental Europe,  and  during  their  stay  there  they  naturally 
laid  in  supplies  of  wine  and  brandy  as  well  as  some  other 
European  goods.    As  Newfoundland  was  held  to  be  an  Eng- 
lish colony,  this  was  clearly  illegal  under  the  Staple  Act  of 
1663,  but  there  was  no  official  in  the  colony  to  stop  such 
practices.    If  such  illegal  trade  were  limited  to  the  compara- 
tively small  wants  of  the  fishermen  and  planters,  it  was  not 
a  very  serious  matter;  but  it  would  imply  a  grave  infraction 
of  the  colonial  system,  if  Newfoundland  were  being  more 
and  more  used  as  a  source  whence  the  other  colonies  were 
supplied  with  these  prohibited  goods.     Some  trade  of  this 
nature  was  carried  on  by  the  Massachusetts  merchants  and 
was  one  of  the  many  reasons  for  that  colony's  disfavor  in 
England.     In    addition,  some  of    the  enumerated  goods, 
especially  tobacco,  were    brought  to    Newfoundland  and 
thence  shipped  to  foreign  markets.^    Alarmingly  exagger- 
ated reports  as  to  the  extent  of  this  trade  reached  England. 
Accordingly,  in  1687,  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs 
stated  that  they  found  that,  under  color  of  a  trade  to  New- 
foundland for  fish,  large  quantities  of  wine,  brandy,  and  other 
European  goods  were    imported  into  the  other    colonies, 
especially  into  New  England,  and  that  Newfoundland  "had 
become  a  Magazine  of  all  sorts  of  Goods  brought  thither 
directly  from  France  Holland  Scotland  Ireland  and  other 
places."    This  trade,  they  claimed,  was  illegal,  since  New- 
foundland "is  not  to  be  taken  or  accompted  a  plantation 

^  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  465,  466. 


i. 


II 


I 


224 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


being  under  no  Govemm*  or  other  Regulation  as  all  His 
Ma*'  Plantations  are,"  and  consequently  they  ordered  the 
seizure  of  all  European  goods  imported  into  the  other 
American  colonies  from  these  settlements.^  This  view  of 
the  status  of  Newfoundland  was  unsound  legally,  and  it 
was  soon  reversed.^  Moreover,  the  order  was  based  upon 
grossly  exaggerated  reports  of  the  extent  of  the  impor- 
tations of  European  goods  into  Newfoundland  and  the 
size  of  New  England's  trade  there. 

In  general,  the  English  fishing  and  sack  ships  took  in 
their  provisions  and  other  supplies  in  England  and  Ireland. 
'What  relates  to  the  fishery,'  it  was  said  in  1679,  'comes 
solely  from  England  in  English  ships.'  ^  On  their  way  to 
Newfoundland  a  number  of  these  vessels  stopped  at  the 
continental  European  ports  for  salt,  and  at  the  same  time 
bought  there  some  wine  and  brandy,  as  well  as  a  few  provi- 
sions and  other  goods.*  Berry  stated  in  1675  that  over  one- 
half  of  this  wine  and  brandy  was  consumed  by  the  crews 
of  the  fishing  ships.^    The  balance  was  sold  to  the  planters 

1  C.  O.  5/904,  ff.  410,  411 ;  Toppan,  Randolph  IV,  pp.  145-147;  C.  C. 
1685-1688,  p.  309.    Cf.  also  C.  O.  1/63,  92. 

2  Towards  the  end  of  the  century  a  vessel,  which  on  technical  grounds 
was  not  free  under  the  Navigation  Acts,  was  seized  on  its  return  from  a 
fishing  voyage  to  Newfoundland.  The  Attorney-General  held  that  the 
seizure  was  valid.  The  Solicitor-General  said :  "I  should  have  thought 
that  Newfoundland  was  neither  a  Collony  or  Plantation  belonging  to  his 
Majesty  having  no  Settled  Govern^  there  nor  pretending  to  any  Dominion 
therein  that  I  can  be  Informed  of,"  but  since  Parliament  has  reckoned 
Newfoundland  among  the  colonies,  the  ship  is  forfeited.  Brit.  Mus.,  Add. 
MSS.  30,218,  ff.  227*'''.  3  Q  Q  1677-1680,  pp.  417-419. 

^  Ihid.  pp.  417-419 ;  C.  O.  1/42,  62  X. 
^  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  276,  277. 


V 


NEWFOUNDLAND 


225 


and  to  the  New  England  traders,  who  exchanged  their 
provisions  and  some  tobacco,  sugar,  rum,  and  molasses  for 
these  commodities  and  for  fish.^  In  addition,  these  traders 
secured  some  cordage,  linens,  and  woollens.^  But  the  entire 
New  England  trade  was  unquestionably  of  small  volume. 
In  1676  it  was  stated  by  a  prominent  resident  of  Newfound- 
land that  eight  vessels  came  annually  from  New  England 
for  purposes  of  trade.^  Five  years  later  there  were  only 
six  such  small  ships.'*  In  1684,^  Captain  Wheler,  R.N.,  re- 
ported that  the  planters  in  Newfoundland  could  not  feed 
themselves,  and  had  to  rely  upon  provisions  brought  from 
England,  Ireland,  and  New  England.  All  clothing  and 
fishmg  tackle,  he  said,  came  from  England,  while  from  France 
and  New  England  were  imported  some  salt,  Hquors,  and  pro- 
visions. The  New  Englanders,  he  said,  brought  pork,  peas, 
some  beef,  limiber,  but  chiefly  rum,  sugar,  and  molasses,  and 
in  return  took  bills  of  exchange  and  fish  for  the  Barbados 
market.^  Wheler  said  that  this  commerce  was  "consider- 
able," but  this  term  conveys  no  definite  meaning.  Its 
volume  can  be  better  judged  by  the  accounts  of  Boston's 
trade  prepared  by  the  well-known  customs  official,  Edward 
Randolph.  Between  May  18  and  September  29, 1686,  there 
arrived  in  that  port  from  Newfoundland  three  vessels  with 
oil  and  fish.^    During  the  same  period,  seven  ships  left  for 

^  Ihid.  pp.  275,  276 ;  ihid.  1677-1680,  pp.  600,  601 ;  C.  O.  1/42,  62  x. 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  105-107. 

*  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  504,  505. 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  P-  106. 

^  C.  O.  1/54,  56;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  707-710. 
'  liid.  7  c.  O.  5/848,  i-S. 


' 


\\ 


\\ 


226 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


I 


.A 


i 


Newfoundland  with  sugar,  molasses,  rum,  lumber,  and 
provisions.^  From  these  facts  it  is  plainly  apparent  that 
Newfoundland  was  not  the  extensive  magazine  of  contra- 
band goods  that  it  was  reported  to  be,  and  that  the  New 
England  traders  secured  only  relatively  insignificant  quan- 
tities of  such  commodities  there.^ 

It  was  not  only  on  account  of  these  illegal  practices  that 
New  England's  trade  with  Newfoundland  was  unfavorably 
regarded  in  England.  There  was  one  other  reason.  It  was 
largely  as  a  nursery  of  seamen  that  these  fisheries  were  so 
highly  esteemed  by  English  statesmen.  Hence  the  rules  of 
1 67 1  obliged  the  English  fishing  ships  to  bring  back  to 
England  their  entire  crew.  This  regulation  was,  however, 
evaded.  In  1679,  ^^  was  reported  that  the  New  England 
traders  yearly  induced  a  number  of  fishermen  to  go  away 
with  them,  and  that  as  a  result  their  own  fisheries  were 
increasing.^  In  the  following  two  years,  similar  complaints 
were  made,  and  it  was  even  claimed  that  this  had  led  to  a 
scarcity  of  sailors  in  England.*  In  1682,  Captain  Jones, 
R.N.,  wrote  that  'none  violate  the  rules  of  the  Western 
Charter  so  much  as  the  New  England  traders,  who  spirit 
away  the  inhabitants,  to  the  mischief  both  of  adventurers 

1 C.  O.  5/848,  6. 

2  It  should,  however,  be  noted  that,  in  1680,  Captain  Robert  Robinson, 
R.N.,  reported  that  'daily  several  ships  and  vessels  come  in  and  out  from 
New  England,  which  may,  in  the  whole  year,  amount  to  100  sail,  and  which 
it  is  impossible  for  the  men-of-war  to  take  account  of.'  C.  C.  1677-1680, 
p.  600.    No  other  document  indicates  so  extensive  a  trade. 

'  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  417-419. 

*  Ibid.  pp.  600,  601 ;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  105-107. 


NEWFOUNDLAND 


227 


and  planters.'  He  reported  that  he  had  seen  one  vessel, 
which  had  arrived  from  New  England  with  eleven  hands, 
leaving  with  twenty,  but  that  he  had  had  the  extra  men  put 
ashore.  In  addition,  he  obliged  the  New  England  traders 
to  give  bonds  not  to  take  away  English  subjects  from 
Newfoundland.^  The  practice  was,  however,  not  stopped,^ 
and  constituted  one  of  the  many  reasons  why  New  England 
was  viewed  so  imfavorably  in  the  mother  country. 

In  spite  of  the  great  attention  paid  to  the  Newfoundland 
fisheries,  England's  share  in  them  did  not  increase  during 
the  seventeenth  century.  In  161 5,  it  was  estimated  that  250 
English  ships  of  15,000  tons  employing  5000  men  were  en- 
gaged in  this  industry,  and  that  the  value  of  the  catch  was 
£135,000.  Twenty  years  later,  it  was  stated  that  the  Eng- 
lish fleet  fishing  at  Newfoundland  employed  10,680  mariners 
and  amounted  in  the  aggregate  to  26,700  tons.^  During  the 
Interregnum,  especially  at  the  time  of  CromwelFs  war  with 
Spain,  the  industry  declined ;  and,  after  the  Restoration,  the 
competition  of  the  French  was  felt  severely.^  The  English 
were  entirely  driven  out  of  the  French  market  and  had  diffi- 
culty in  maintaining  themselves  in  Portugal,  Spain,  and  Italy. ^ 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  294. 

*  In  1684,  Captain  Wheler,  R.N.,  wrote :  "  Butt  this  I  find  very  in- 
convenient for  the  Kings  Service,  y'  the  New  England  Men  constantly 
carry  away  abundance  of  y?  fishermen,  &  Seamen,  who  presently  marry, 
&  then  that  is  there  home."     C.  O.  1/54,  56. 

^  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  292,  293. 

*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1730;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  147,  148;  C.  C.  1675- 
1676,  pp.  187-189 ;  Sir  Francis  Brewster,  Essays  on  Trade  and  Navigation 
(London,  1695),  pp.  69,  70. 

^  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  621-625;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  226,  227.    As  late  as 


228 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


NEWFOUNDLAND 


229 


In  1675,  175  English  ships  with  4300  men  were  engaged 
in  this  industry,  and  their  catch  together  with  that  of  the 
planters  was  valued  at  £i63,cxx5.^  During  the  following  two 
years  there  was  a  sUght  decrease,^  and  on  the  whole  no 
progress  had  been  made  since  1615.^  At  this  time,  the  French 
were  rapidly  acquiring  an  unquestionable  superiority.  They 
made  more  and  better  cured  fish,  and  arrived  earlier  at  the 
European  markets.^  In  the  eighties,  the  EngHsh  fishery 
showed  a  marked  decline.  In  1680,  201,250  quintals  of  fish 
were  cured  as  against  241,250  five  years  before.^  In  1682, 
Captain  Jones,  R.N.,  wrote  that  the  fishing  had  been  in- 
different and  could  not  compare  with  the  French  catch,  and 
that  as  a  result  the  Adventurers  were  so  discouraged  that 

1675,  however,  some  English  ships  sailed  with  fish  from  Newfoundland  to 
France.  C.  0. 1/35, 16  i.  In  addition  to  the  English  and  French,  some  few 
ships  from  Biscay  and  Portugal  fished  upon  the  northern  coast  of  Newfoimd- 
land  and  upon  the  Great  Bank.    C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  156. 

1  C.  O.  390/6,  f.  I ;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  27s,  276. 

2  C.  O.  1/38,  91 ;  C.  O.  1/41,  62  i-x;  C.  O.  390/6,  ff.  2,  3;  C.  C.  1675- 

1676,  pp.  508,  509;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  154,  155. 

^  In  161 5,  the  3deld  was  300,000  quintals  at  Ss.,  amounting  to  £120,000. 
In  1677,  the  corresponding  figures  were  221,220  quintals  at  125.,  amounting 
to  £132,732.    C.  O.  195/2,  f.  23. 

*  C.  O.  1/41,  62;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  153,  154.  In  1676,  the  total 
yield  of  the  French  fishery  was  £386,478,  that  of  the  English  £143,788. 
C.  O.  195/2,  ff.  23,  27.     See  also  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  107,  294,  708. 

^  In  1680,  97  English  ships  of  9305  tons  with  3922  men  and  793  boats 
fished  in  Ne\Nrfoundland,  making  for  export  133,910  quintals,  which  at  12s. 
6d.  amounted  to  £83,693  155.  The  planters  with  361  boats  made  67,340 
quintals  valued  at  £42,087  10s.  The  fishing  ships  carried  to  market 
75,510  quintals.  The  balance  exported  to  Europe,  125,740  quintals,  was 
carried  in  99  sack  ships  of  8123  tons  with  11 57  men.  C.  O.  1/46,  78,  79; 
C.  O.  390/6,  f.  4;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  643. 


some  had  laid  up  their  ships  and  more  threatened  to  do  so.^ 
In  1684,  the  output  was  only  115,420  quintals.^  Despite 
this  unsatisfactory  state  of  affairs,  which  was  not  remedied 
imtil  after  the  commercial  competition  with  France  had 
assumed  the  form  of  armed  conflict,  Newfoundland  was  a 
valuable  imperial  asset.  Its  fisheries  gave  employment  to  a 
large  number  of  vessels  and  produced  a  considerable  number 
of  trained  sailors.  The  cured  fish  was  in  the  main  sold  to 
the  Catholic  nations  of  southern  Europe,  and  their  result- 
ing indebtedness  constituted  an  important  item  in  England's 
international  balance-sheet. 

1  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  294.    Cf.  ibid,  p.  178,  and  C.  O.  390/6,  flf.  4, 5. 

2  C.  O.  390/6,  f.  6. 


t 


CHAPTER  XI 


MASSACHUSETTS 

England's  attitude  towards  the  New  England  colonies  —  Massachusetts's 
view  of  the  imperial  relation  —  The  situation  in  1660  —  The  royal  Com- 
missioners of  1664  —  The  claims  of  Mason  and  Gorges  —  New  England's 
irregular  trading  threatens  the  integrity  of  the  colonial  system  —  Ed- 
ward Randolph's  mission  in  1676  —  His  reports  and  the  beginnings 
of  the  movement  to  abrogate  the  Massachusetts  charter  —  Randolph 
appointed  Collector  of  the  Customs  in  New  England  —  His  diflficulties 
in  enforcing  the  laws  —  Extent  of  illegal  trade  —  The  Massachusetts 
Naval  Ofl&ce  Act  —  Abrogation  of  the  charter  —  Smnmary. 

The  colonies,  whose  economic  problems  and  development 
have  hitherto  been  considered,  had  this  feature  in  common, 
that  each  in  its  own  way  corresponded  in  some  degree  to  the 
aims  and  ideals  of  EngHsh  imperiahsm.  The  sugar  and  other 
products  of  the  West  Indies  both  freed  England  from  de- 
pendence upon  foreign  sources  of  supply  and  also  gave  her 
a  credit  balance  in  the  international  market.  Furthermore, 
a  large  number  of  ships  were  employed  in  transporting 
these  commodities  to  Europe,  and  a  considerable  revenue 
was  collected  from  the  import  duties  to  which  they  were  sub- 
ject in  England.  In  addition,  these  colonies  consumed  an 
abundant  quantity  of  EngHsh  goods.  The  trade  to  Virginia 
and  Maryland  was  in  a  similar  way  of  great  national  advan- 
tage. Although  in  themselves  of  but  slight  direct  economic 
value,  the  Bahamas  and  Bermudas  were  important  in  that 
their  strategic  position  facilitated  the  protection  of  the  in- 

230 


MASSACHUSETTS 


231 


valuable  sugar  and  tobacco  trades.  The  two  small  settle- 
ments in  the  Carolinas  had  not  as  yet  fulfilled  the  over-san- 
guine anticipations  of  the  proprietors,  but  each  in  a  diiOFerent 
manner  was  later  to  contribute  to  the  economic  strength 
and  self-sufficiency  of  the  Empire.  Finally  Newfoundland, 
in  spite  of  French  competition,  was  still  an  important  im- 
perial asset,  employing  many  mariners  and  ships  and  ena- 
bling England  to  pay  with  its  fish  for  the  wine,  silk,  fruits, 
and  other  products  of  Mediterranean  Europe. 

When  considered  from  this  standpoint,  the  New  England 
colonies  and  those  added  to  the  Empire  later — New  York, 
Pennsylvania,  and  the  Jerseys — form  an  entirely  distinct 
and  separate  group.  At  the  time  of  the  settlement  of  New 
England,  it  was  expected  that  this  region  would  supplant 
the  Baltic  countries  as  England's  source  of  supply  for  naval 
stores  and  that  an  extensive  fishery  would  be  developed  in 
this  region.^  The  latter  hope  was  realized,  but  the  fishery 
on  the  New  England  coast  soon  became  a  purely  colonial 
enterprise,  in  no  way  adding  to  England's  naval  and  com- 
mercial strength,  and  even  lessening  it  by  competing  with 
the  English  Adventurers  in  Newfoundland.  Moreover,  the 
attempts  to  secure  from  New  England  pitch,  tar,  hemp,  and 
other  naval  stores,  though  persisted  in  for  a  considerable 
period,  were  unmitigated  failures.  Hence  interest  was 
shifted  from  this  region,  and  there  developed  in  England  a 

^  Beer,  Origins,  pp.  63-70.  In  his  notes  on  New  England,  Sir  Simonds 
D'Ewes  stated  that  in  that  region  were  all  the  materials  for  supplying 
shipping  to  England,  whose  resources  in  timber  were  failing.  Brit.  Mus., 
Harleian  MSS.  167,  f.  105. 


in 


232 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


MASSACHUSETTS 


233 


marked  tendency  in  favor  of  tropical  and  semi-tropical 
colonization,  by  means  of  which  England  would  be  able  to 
secure  an  abundant  supply  of  exotic  products  both  for  home 
consiunption  and  for  export  to  foreign  nations.  At  the  time 
of  the  Restoration  but  scant  national  advantage  was  ex- 
pected from  the  colonization  of  the  more  northerly  regions 
of  America,  and  the  attention  of  the  government  was  prima- 
rily directed  towards  the  development  of  the  West  Indies 
and  those  parts  of  the  continent  to  the  South  of  Delaware 
Bay.  A  colony  was  valued  mainly  as  a  source  of  supply, 
and  beyond  some  fish-oil,  a  few  furs,  ships,  and  some  masts 
(mainly  those  of  exceptionally  large  size,  which  were  scarce 
in  Europe),  New  England  furnished  the  metropolis  with 
virtually  nothing.  Moreover,  these  colonies  to  some  extent 
duplicated  the  economic  Hfe  of  England  and  competed  with 
her  in  supplying  food-stuffs  to  the  West  Indies,  in  the  carry- 
ing trade,  and  in  the  fisheries.^    The  main  economic  advan- 

^  In  1 66 1,  Captain  Thomas  Breedon  urged  the  English  authorities  to 
settle  the  government  and  secure  the  obedience  of  New  England,  "they 
being  the  key  to  the  Indies  without  which  Jamaica,  Barbadoes  and  y^  Char- 
ibby  Islands  are  not  able  to  subsist,  there  being  many  thousand  tunns  of 
provisions,  as  beefe,  porke,  pease,  biskett,  butter,  fish,  carried  to  Spaine 
Portugall  and  the  Indies  every  year,  besides  sufl&cient  for  the  Countrey's 
use."  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  p.  40.  At  this  time,  however,  the  West  Indies 
could  have  been  abundantly  supplied  from  England,  Ireland,  and  Newfound- 
land, and  hence  this  argument  was  as  yet  of  Uttle  force  and  validity.  Only 
at  a  considerably  later  date  would  such  a  claim  have  been  true.  During 
the  Restoration,  England  was  an  exporter  of  food-stuffs  and  competed 
with  the  continental  colonies  in  the  West  Indian  markets.  Cf.  Cal.  Treas. 
Books,  1672-167 5,  p.  100.  In  1680,  Governor  Bradstreet  of  Massachusetts  re- 
ported that  they  sold  their  horses,  lumber,  provisions,  and  fish  to  the  sugar 
colonies,  but  that  many  times  they  found  these  markets  "so  overlaid  and 


tage  derived  from  the  New  England  colonies  consisted  in 
their  consumption  of  English  goods.  Not  only  was  this 
outlet  under  normal  conditions  not  large,  but  in  addition 
Massachusetts  consistently  sought  to  lessen  it  by  the  crea- 
tion of  local  industries.^ 

In  1671,  the  Earl  of  Sandwich  —  one  of  the  surviving 
Cromwelhan  worthies  — put  in  writing  his  opinion  of  the 
New  England  situation,  which  was  based  upon  the  many 
sources  of  information  open  to  him  as  President  of  the 
Council  for  Plantations.  New  England  was  already  at  that 
date,  he  said,  a  numerous  and  thriving  people  and  in  twenty 
years  was  Ukely  "  to  be  mighty  rich  and  powerfull  and  not 
at  all  carefull  of  theire  dependance  upon  old  England."  As  a 
result,  England  was  exposed  to  the  following  inconveniences : 
I,  the  loss  of  her  exports  of  manufactures  to  these  colonies 

clogged  with  the  like  comoditys  from  England  Ireland  and  other  places" 
that  many  of  their  products  had  to  be  sold  there  for  less  than  their  value  in 
Massachusetts.     C.  O.  1/44,  61  i.    The  isolated  details  available  about  the 
prices  current  in  England  and  the  colonies  are  not  sufficiently  complete,  for 
precise  deductions.    According  to  such  a  Ust  for  the  year  1677,  the  price 
of  bread  in  England  was  about  half  that  in  Massachusetts,  while  beef 
and  pork  were  considerably  dearer.    Bodleian,  RawUnson  MSS.,  A 185,  f. 
263.    The  facts  are,  however,  far  from  clear.    In  1671,  Sandwich  stated 
that  New  England  supplied  the  West  Indies  with  provisions  and  "  all 
wooden  utensiUs,  much  cheaper  then  others  can."     F.  R.  Harris,  Edward 
Mountagu,  Earl  of  Sandwich  II,  p.  337.    In  1689,  it  was  also  claimed  that  the 
other  colonies  could  not  subsist  without  the  suppUes  of  beef,  pork,  fish,  meal, 
lumber,  and  horses  from  New  England.    A  Brief  Relation  of  the  State  of 
New  England  (London,  1689),  in  Force  IV,  no.  11,  pp.  7,  8.    Some  few  years 
later,  Davenant  based  his  defence  of  the  northern  colonies  on  this  fact.     On 
this  entire  subject,  see  also  ante,  Vol.  I,  pp.  49-51. 

1  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  IV,  Part  II,  pp.  296,  320,  512 ;   V,  p.  28.    Cf.  W.  B. 
Weeden,  Economic  and  Social  History  of  New  England  I,  pp.  303-310. 


'I 


^'ii 


i 


234 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


I 


f 


b 


i 


—  "  possibly  to  the  value  of  £50,000  per  aim."  —  and  more- 
over the  likelihood  of  their  competing  with  England  in  the 
sale  of  such  goods  in  foreign  markets ;  2,  the  dependence  of 
the  West  Indies  upon  them  for  provisions  and  "  all  wooden 
utensills,"  and  the  probabihty  that  they  would  also  furnish 
those  islands  with  other  manufactures  "  that  we  doe,"  and 
so  "  reape  the  whole  benefitt  of  those  colonies ; "  their  con- 
trol of  the  trade  in  masts  and  naval  stores  in  northern 
America,  whose  later  development  he  foresaw.  Sandwich 
realized  that  it  was  impossible  "  to  prevent  wholly  theire 
encrease  and  arrivall  at  this  power,"  but  he  deemed  it 
"advisable  to  hinder  theire  growth  as  much  as  can  be." 
With  this  object  in  view,  he  suggested  :  i,  the  passage  of  an 
Act  of  ParHament  prohibiting  emigration  to  the  colonies 
without  license  from  the  King — "  at  present  40  or  50  famiUes 
or  more  goinge  yearely  thither;"  2,  "to  remoove  as  many 
people  from  New  England  to  our  southern  plantations  as 
may  be,  where  the  produce  of  theire  labours  will  not  be 
commodities  of  the  same  nature  with  old  England  to 
out-trade  us  withall."  ^ 

Thus,  however  significant  from  the  standpoint  of  universal 
history  was  the  colonization  of  New  England,  however  vital 
and  fundamental  a  part  it  played  in  the  transfer  of  European 
civilization  to  the  American  continent,  these  communities 
were  in  the  eyes  of  contemporary  statesmen  but  the  unfortu- 
nate results  of  misdirected  efforts,  since  in  no  way  did  they 
answer  the  national  ends  of  their  creation.  It  would  be 
difficult  to  over-emphasize  the  influence  of  New  England 

1 F.  R.  Harris,  Edward  Mountagu,  Earl  of  Sandwich  H,  pp.  337,  338. 


MASSACHUSETTS 


23  s 


in  the  genesis  of  the  American  Nation,  but  the  English 
government,  when  directing  the  movement  of  colonization, 
did  not  aim  to  create  embryonic  national  states,  but  colonies 
of  the  plantation  type  or  trading  and  fishing  stations, 
whose  commercial  and  poKtical  welfare  would  be  intimately 
bound  up  with  that  of  the  metropolis.  That  the  outcome 
was  far  different  from  the  one  contemplated  is  merely  one 
of .  the  innumerable  historical  instances  in  which  forces 
beyond  the  foresight  of  contemporaries  in  the  end  turned 
their  labors  towards  an  entirely  different  result.  It  was 
the  inexorable  force  of  circumstances,  not  choice,  that  first 
made  England  the  "Mother  of  Nations."  The  course  of 
events  in  Massachusetts  was  the  most  potent  factor  in 
forcing  this  unwelcome  role  upon  England. 

The  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  century  statesmen 
aimed  primarily  to  create  a  self-sufficient  commercial  Em- 
pire of  mutually  complementary  economic  parts.  As  New 
England  did  not  fit  into  such  a  scheme,  its  political  connec- 
tion with  England  was  constantly  a  disturbing  factor,  in- 
terfering with  the  plans  of  the  English  government.  De- 
spite persistent  efforts,  it  could  not  be  moulded  into  the 
proper  economic  shape.  It  remained  always  a  centre  of 
disharmony,  out  of  accord  with  the  spirit  of  British  im- 
perialism until  ultimately,  when  events  were  favorable,  its 
secession  and  that  of  the  other  continental  colonies  dis- 
rupted the  old  commercial  Empire. 

To  some  extent  a  parallel  may  be  drawn  between  the 
development  of  New  England  and  a  significant  episode  in 
Roman  imperialism.    At  the  time   of   Cesar's  conquest, 


I 

i 


i' 


!|l,i 


II 


•  *l 


236 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


I 


I 


1 


Gaul  was  in  the  eyes  of  Rome  a  poor  barbarous  region  of 
swamps  and  forests,  which  offered  the  prospect  of  much 
fighting,  but  of  Httle  booty  or  permanent  wealth.  Every- 
one then  was  planning  the  conquest  of  the  rich  and  civil- 
ized Orient.^  Similarly,  in  Restoration  England  slight  or  no 
economic  advantages  to  the  nation  were  expected  from  the 
colonization  and  settlement  of  the  more  northerly,  temperate 
regions  of  America,  but  it  was  from  the  southerly  and  tropi- 
cal parts  that  great  wealth  was  anticipated.  Yet  Gaul 
became  in  time  the  richest  of  Roman  provinces,  and  New 
England  likewise  attained  a  similar  position  in  the  British 
Empire.  Moreover,  in  a  broad  way,  the  conquest  of  Gaul 
marks  the  beginning  of  European  civilization  and,  as  a  re- 
sult of  its  subsequent  economic  development,  this  province 
coimterbalanced  the  Oriental  influences  that  threatened  to 
change  the  culture  of  Rome.  In  the  same  broad  way.  New 
England  was  the  chief  centre,  or  at  least  one  of  the  two 
chief  ones,  whence  European  civilization  spread  over  the 
North  American  continent.  Ultimately,  in  population  and 
in  wealth,  Gaul  overshadowed  its  parent  state,  just  as  the 
United  States  has  in  these  respects  outstripped  its  metrop- 
olis. None  of  these  momentous  results  was  even  vaguely 
foreseen  by  the  Roman  or  English  statesmen,  who  set  in 
movement  and  directed  the  forces  leading  thereto,  and  both 
had  in  view  ends  far  different  from  those  ultimately  realized. 
In  1660,  the  position  of  New  England  towards  the  Em- 
pire offered  very  many  difficulties.  These  communities  — 
Massachusetts,  New  Plymouth,  Connecticut,  Rhode  Island — 

^  Ferrero,  Characters  and  Events  of  Roman  History,  pp.  72,  73. 


I 


MASSACHUSETTS 


237 


were  virtually  independent  commonwealths,  acknowledging 
only  the  slenderest  tie  of  allegiance  to  the  mother  country. 
They  all,  but  especially  Massachusetts,  regarded  with  sus- 
picion and  disfavor  the  restored  monarchy,  dreading  a  loss 
of  the  liberties  that  they  had  enjoyed  during  the  supremacy  of 
their  spiritual  kin  in  England  under  the  Commonwealth  and 
Protectorate.    Many  of  the  most  influential  of  the  colonists 
would  have  welcomed  a  status  of  absolute  independence. 
But  they  dared  not  attempt  to  carry  their  ideal  into  prac- 
tice, for  even  if  English  opposition  could  have  been  over- 
come,  there  were  present   other  deterring  factors.     New 
England  was  surrounded  by  the  possessions  of  France  and 
the  United  Provinces,  and  these  European  powers  would 
not  have  hesitated  to  add  this  region  to  the  list  of  their 
colonial  dependencies,  if  the  prospect  of  war  with  England 
had  been  removed.     In  that  age  of  keen  international  rivalry 
in  colonization,  a  small  and  undeveloped  community,  like 
Massachusetts,  could  under  no  circumstances  hope  to  remain 
an  independent  poUtical  entity.  ^    That  independence  from 

*  In  1664,  Sir  John  Wolstenholme,  one  of  the  Farmers  of  the  Customs, 
wrote  to  Edward  Rawson,  the  Secretary  of  Massachusetts,  that,  "if  wayed 
with  judgment  and  discretion,"  the  colonies  were  as  much  concerned  as 
England  in  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation,  "for  if 
wee  doe  not  maintaine  here  the  honour  and  reputation  of  his  Majesty  and 
the  nation  which  must  be  by  our  navigation  and  shipping  which  are  our 
walls,  the  plantations  will  be  subject  to  be  devoured  by  straingers."  Hutch- 
inson Papers  H,  p.  108.  In  1671,  when  discussing  the  possibility  of  New 
England's  secession.  Sandwich,  however,  stated :  "I  confesse  as  yet  informed 
I  doe  not  in  the  least  apprehend  theire  need  of,  or  disposition  to  admitt  the 
protection  of  any  other  Nation  either  French  or  Dutch,  but  if  any  the  French 
rather  of  the  2,  for  the  likelihood  of  better  usage  and  power  already  in 
America."    F.  R.  Harris,  op.  cit.  II,  p.  ss^. 


238 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


I 


r 


i 


England  would  merely  have  been  a  step  to  their  conquest  by 
the  French  or  Dutch,  in  all  likelihood  the  former,  was  keenly 
realized,  though  but  faintly  expressed,  by  the  Puritan  colonies. 
Throughout  the  entire  colonial  period,  until  the  conquest 
of  Canada  in  1760,  the  GaUic  peril  was  the  dominating 
dynamic  factor  controlling  the  poUtical  relations  between 
New  England  and  the  Empire.  The  more  acute  was  this 
danger,  the  more  these  colonies  were  thrown  back  upon 
England,  and  when  once  it  was  entirely  removed,  indepen- 
dence, whether  merely  in  fact  or  in  name  also,  was  the 
inevitable  result.  New  England's  thought  upon  imperial 
questions  was  not  consciously  dominated  by  this  factor, 
but  imconsciously  and  continuously  it  determined  the 
strength  and  weakness  of  the  tie  binding  together  me- 
tropoHs  and  colony.  The  colonist  did  not  say  to  himself : 
"If  my  country  were  independent,  it  could  remain  so 
only  on  the  sufferance  of  France,  and  it  could  never  ex- 
pand inland  while  that  aggressive  and  powerful  neighbor 
claimed  the  land  that  surrounds  it."  But  a  realization  of 
this  fact  formed  the  background  of  all  colonial  speculation 
on  these  subjects. 

Accordingly  it  is  not  surprising  that  Massachusetts  in 
1660,  after  some  hesitation,  determined  to  acknowledge 
allegiance  to  the  restored  monarchy,  while  at  the  same  time 
reserving  the  greatest  possible  amoimt  of  freedom  of  action. 
At  the  outset,  the  political  question  was  not  complicated  by 
the  economic  one,  for  the  Act  of  Navigation  protected  their 
ship-building  and  carrying  trades  from  foreign  competition, 
and  did  not  put  in  the  enumerated  list  any  of  New  England's 


MASSACHUSETTS 


239 


products.*  Towards  the  end  of  1660,  Governor  Endicott 
of  Massachusetts,  in  a  letter  written  in  an  humble,  and  even 
obsequious,  tone,  full  of  characteristic  Biblical  references  and 
phrases,  supplicated  Charles's  "gratious  protection  of  us 
in  the  continuance  both  of  our  civill  priviledges  .  .  .  and 
of  our  religious  Uberties,"  as  expressed  in  the  colony's 
charter.^  The  despatch  was  extremely  vague  and  merely 
acknowledged  Charles  II  as  their  lawful  sovereign.  To  this 
letter  an  equally  non-committal  reply  was  sent,  in  which 
Charles  II  wrote  that  he  had  made  'it  his  care  to  settle 
his  lately  distracted  kingdoms  at  home,  and  to  extend  his 
thoughts  to  increase  the  trade  and  advantages  of  his  Colonies 
and  Plantations  abroad,  among  which  His  Majesty  consid- 
ers New  England  to  be  one  of  the  chief  est.'  ^  Apart  from 
recognizing  a  vague  allegiance  to  the  Crown,  Massachusetts 
was  willing  to  concede  no  political  rights  to  England  and  in 
especial  was  opposed  to  having  appeals  from  the  colonial 
courts  heard  there.**  According  to  their  officially  expressed 
view,  the  colony  was  "by  the  pattent  a  body  politicke,  in 

^  As  has,  however,  already  been  pointed  out,  the  law,  as  administered  at 
the  outset,  obliged  vessels  sailing  from  England  to  bring  back  whatsoever 
products  they  should  lade  in  the  colonies.  As  far  as  New  England  was 
concerned,  this  error  was  rectified  already  in  1661.  See  attte,  Vol.  II,  pp. 
114,  lis- 

'  "Our  wittnes  is  in  heaven,  that  wee  left  not  our  countrjevpon  anydis- 
sattisfaction  as  to  the  constitution  of  the  civil  State.  Our  lott  after  the 
example  of  the  good  old  non  conformist,  hath  binn  onely  to  act  a  passiue 
part  throughout  these  late  vicissitudes  and  successiue  ouerturninges  of 
State."    Mass.  Col.  Rec.  IV,  Part  I,  pp.  448-453 ;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  26. 

^  C,  C.  1661-1668,  no.  31. 

*  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  IV,  Part  I,  pp.  445,  446. 


U' 


240 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


If 


1 

r 


i 


; 


fact  and  name/'  and  had  "full  power  &  authoritje,  both 
legislative  &  executive,  for  the  gounment  of  all  the  people 
heere,  whither  inhabitants  or  straingers,  both  concerning 
eclesiasticks  &  in  ciuils  w%ut  appeale,  excepting  lawe  or 
lawes  repugnant  to  the  lawes  of  England.''  ^ 

Such  revolutionary  views,  so  subversive  of  all  imperial 
control,  were  in  the  nature  of  a  challenge  to  the  English 
government.  In  166 1  were  also  received  several  complaints 
against  Massachusetts,^  of  which  the  most  effective  was  that 
addressed  by  Captain  Thomas  Breedon  to  the  Council  for 
Foreign  Plantations.^  "It  is  not  vnknowne  to  you,"  he 
wrote,  "that  they  looke  on  themselves  as  a  Free  State,  and 
how  they  sate  in  Counsell  in  December  last  a  weeke  before 
they  could  agree  of  writeing  to  his  Ma'^,  there  being  too 
many  against  owning  the  King  or  their  haveing  any  de- 
pendance  on  England."  He  further  added  that  the  French 
and  Dutch  traded  to  the  English  colonies  very  much  to 
England's  prejudice  and  to  the  loss  of  many  thousands  of 
pounds  to  His  Majesty's  customs. 

On  the  strength  of  these  various  complaints  and  of  other 
sources  of  information,  the  Council  for  Foreign  Plantations 
reported  in  the  spring  of  1661  ^  that  New  England  had 
"strayed  into  many  enormities,"  had  transgressed  the 
powers  of  its  charters,  and  "that  their  Trade  is  in  no  way 
managed   to  yf  Advantage  of  His   Ma'f  Crown."    They 

1  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  IV,  Part  IE,  pp.  24-26. 

2  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  46,  48-53. 

» IhU.  no.  45 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  39-41 ;  N.  Y.  Hist.  Soc.  CoU. 
1869,  pp.  16-19;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  297-298;  C.  O.  1/42,  133. 
*  C.  O.  1/15,  nos.  42,  47 ;  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  299. 


-~siViflB  m*-. 


MASSACHUSETTS 


241 


import  "hither  very  little  to  the  Balance  of  their  Exporta- 
tion," and  "  Contrary  to  the  Policies  &  restrictions  hereto- 
fore observed  by  Yof  Ma'f  Predecesors  have  transported 
&  increased  a  Stock  of  Sheepe  to  the  number  of  neere  one 
hundred  thousand  Sheepe,  whereby,  not  only,  this  Nation 
&  y^  manufacture  thereof  are  become  less  necessary  to  them, 
but  they  are  likely  to  be  so  stored  with  wool  that  the  Dutch, 
who  Trade  freely  with  them,  may  supply  themselves  from 
thence,  of  such  Wool  as  shall  be  necessary  for  them  to  mingle 
with  their  finer  Wools,  w*".^  they  draw  together  out  of  several 
parts  of  Europe."    The  Council  then  stated  that  they  had 
called  before  them  Leverett,  who  had  acted  for  several  years 
as  agent  for  Massachusetts,  but  that  he  claimed  that  he  had 
no  authority  to  give  any  information  or  to  answer  the  com- 
plaints, as  his  agency  had  expired.     "By  all  which  it  ap- 
pears, "  the  report  continued,  "that  the  Government  there 
hath  purposely  &  upon   design   withdrawn   all  manner  of 
means  of  corresponding  or  being  understood,  or  having  their 
Affairs  judg'd,  or  disposed  of  in  England,  as  if  they  intended 
to  suspend  their  absolute  obedience  to  His  Ma^f  Authority, 
until  time  shall  farther  discover  how  far  Necessity  or  their 
Interests  shall  compell  them  thereunto."    As  the  situation 
was  a  delicate  one,  the  Council  prepared  a  tactful  letter  for 
New  England,  one  written  "with  all  possible  tenderness," 
avoiding  all  contentious  matters  and  not  mentioning  either 
their  reception  of  the  regicides,  Whalley  and  Goffe,  or  "press- 
ing upon  them  the  Act  of  Navigation  (as  we  have  done  to 
other  places)  which  restraines  the  Licentiousness  of  their 
Trading." 

*  (2) 


i 


m 


I'< 


1 


•I 

i 


•f^ 


I 

1^! 


|i> 


I 


242 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


This  report  and  the  proposed  letter  were  submitted  to  the 
Privy  Council,  which  did  not  think  it  fit  that  the  despatch 
should  be  sent  at  that  time,  'nor  at  all  by  the  Council  of 
Plantations,'  and,  as  the  question  was  *a  matter  of  State/ 
it  appointed  its  own  special  committee  for  this  purpose.*  The 
English  government  was,  however,  unwilling  to  bring  matters 
to  an  issue,  as  there  was  little  to  be  gained  even  in  the  event 
of  success.  Far  different  would  have  been  its  attitude,  if 
Massachusetts  had  been  producing  some  commodity  like 
sugar  or  tobacco.  Hence  it  pursued  a  waiting  policy  and 
its  attitude  was  to  a  marked  degree  conciliatory.  In  1662 
and  1663,  respectively,  exceedingly  liberal  charters  were 
granted  to  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island;^  and,  although 
Massachusetts  was  mildly  taken  to  task  for  its  bigoted  in- 
tolerance towards  the  Quakers,'  its  charter  was  confirmed 
and  a  free  pardon  was  granted  for  offences  committed  during 
the  Civil  War,  provided  the  oath  of  allegiance  were  observed 
and  justice  were  administered  in  the  King's  name.* 

Matters  could  not,  however,  continue  long  in  this  inde- 
terminate condition.  Massachusetts  had  either  to  become 
an  actual  member  of  the  Empire  or  to  withdraw  wholly  from 
it.  It  could  not  continue  to  enjoy  the  advantage  of  being 
protected  as  an  English  colony,  while  in  other  respects  acting 
as  if  it  were  an  independent  state.  Self-respect,  if  nothing 
else,  obliged  England  not  to  permit  Massachusetts  to  ignore 
the  duties  that  were  a  corollary  to  the  privileges  it  enjoyed 

1  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  86,  87,  88,  91. 

2  Ibid.  nos.  284,  512 ;  R.  1.  Col.  Rec.  II,  pp.  1-2 1. 

^  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  89,  90,  168.        ■*  Ibid.  no.  314. 


MASSACHUSETTS 


243 


as  a  member  of  the  English  Empire.  Towards  the  end  of 
1662,  after  a  serious  debate  on  New  England  affairs  in  the 
Committee  for  Plantations,  the  Lord  Chancellor  declared 
that  the  King  would  speedily  send  commissioners  to  settle 
the  affairs  of  these  colonies.^  But  it  was  only  a  year  and  a 
half  later,  when  England  was  sending  an  expedition  to  attack 
New  Netherland,  that  this  resolution  was  carried  into  effect. 
Presumably  it  was  thought  that  the  presence  of  an  armed 
force  would  make  recalcitrant  Massachusetts  more  pliable. 

In  1664,  a  commission  was  issued  to  Colonel  Richard 
Nicolls,  Sir  Robert  Carr,  George  Cartwright,  and  Samuel 
Maverick  to  visit  the  several  colonies  in  New  England,  to 
examine  and  determine  complaints  and  appeals  in  all  causes, 
and  to  settle  the  peace  and  security  of  that  country.^  These 
Commissioners  were  ordered  to  proceed  to  Massachusetts 
and,  among  other  things,  to  see  that  the  Act  of  Navigation 
was  pimctually  observed  and  to  make  particular  inquiries 
into  the  whole  frame  and  constitution  of  their  government.^ 
On  the  same  day  that  these  instructions  were  issued,  Charles 
II  wrote  to  the  Massachusetts  authorities  that  one  of  the 
reasons  for  sending  the  Commissioners  was  'to  discounte- 
nance, suppress,  and  utterly  extinguish  all  unreasonable 
jealousies  and  mahcious  calumnies  that  the  King's  subjects 
in  those  parts  do  not  submit  to  his  Majesty's  Government, 
but  look  upon  themselves  as  independent  upon  us  and  our 
laws.'  ^    In  so  far  as  the  other  New  England  colonies  were 

1  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  337,  338;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  370. 

2  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  708. 

3  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  ff.  387  etseq.;  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  IV,  Part 
II,  p.  117;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  711.  4  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  715. 


1 


'•ii 


ti 


i 


If 


f 


tf^ 


»l 


31 


244 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


concerned,  essentially  the  same  instructions  were  issued  ; 
and,  in  addition,  the  Commissioners  were  especially  directed 
to  inquire  what  iron-works  had  already  been  erected  in 
Connecticut,  what  opportunities  existed  for  others,  and  of 
what  nature  was  their  ore.^  Thus  these  Commissioners 
were  to  inform  themselves  not  only  about  religious  and 
political  conditions  in  New  England,  but  also  about  their 
economic  development.  The  aim  of  the  EngHsh  govern- 
ment was  to  secure  both  their  submission  to  the  sovereignty 
of  the  mother  coxmtry,  and  also  their  incorporation  into 
the  commercial  system  which  the  Restoration  statesmen 
were  creating. 

The  Commissioners  met  with  a  satisfactory  reception  in 
the  smaller  New  England  colonies  —  Connecticut,  Rhode 
Island,  and  New  Plymouth.  In  them  justice  was  adminis- 
tered in  the  King's  name,  and  they  further  allowed  the  Com- 
missioners to  hear  appeals  and  promised  loyalty  and  obedi- 
ence to  England.  These  colonies  were,  however,  feeble 
and  of  slight  commercial  importance.  Pl)anouth  was  situ- 
ated in  the  most  barren  part  of  the  country.  They  had, 
the  Commissioners  reported,  about  twelve  small  towns, 
one  saw-mill,  "one  bloomery  for  iron,"  but  they  were  very 
poor,  having  no  good  river,  no  good  harbor,  nor  any 
place  of  strength.  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut,  though 
much  more  fertile,  were  still  largely  undeveloped.  In  the 
former,  considerable  attention  was  paid  to  the  raising  of 
sheep;  but,  in  general,  the  chief  occupation  of  both  colonies 
was  the  production  of  provisions  for  home  consumption 

1 C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  717 ;  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  ff.  393  et  seq. 


MASSACHUSETTS 


245 


and  for  export  to  the  West  Indies  and  Newfoundland.^  The 
attitude  of  these  colonies  was,  however,  of  no  special  im- 
portance, as  in  material  resources  and  development  they 
were  insignificant  in  comparison  with  Massachusetts. 
Politically,  and  even  more  so  economically,  they  were 
dwarfed  by  their  powerful  neighbor.  As  the  Commission- 
ers reported,  Massachusetts  had  engrossed  the  whole  trade 
of  New  England,  and  was  by  far  the  richest  and  most 
prosperous  of  these  communities. 

At  this  time  it  was  said  that  Boston,  a  growing  town  of 
several  thousand  people,  was  "full  of  good  Shopps  well 
furnished  with  all  kind  of  Merchandize  and  many  Artificers 
and  Tradesmen  of  all  sorts."  ^  The  basic  mdustries  of  the 
colony  were  ship-building,  fishing,  and  agriculture.  A  large 
number  of  boats  were  employed  in  the  local  fishery,  and  the 
best  fish  was  sent  to  southern  Europe  and  to  the  Spanish 
and  Portuguese  "Wine  Islands,"  while  that  of  poorer  quaHty 
found  a  market  in  the  English  West  Indies.  In  addition, 
they  shipped  pipe-staves,  masts,  lumber,  some  pitch  and  tar, 
beef,  pork,  horses,  and  corn  to  Virginia,  Barbados,  and  the 

1  The  Commissioners  reported  that  the  best  Enghsh  grass  and  most 
sheep  were  in  Rhode  Island,  *  the  ground  being  very  fruitful,  ewes  bring  ordi- 
narily two  lambs,  corn  yields  80  for  one,  and  in  some  places  has  grown  26 
years  together  without  manuring.'  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1103  ;  Brit.  Mus., 
Egerton  MSS.  2395,  ff.  426  et  seq.  On  September  19, 1660,  John  Winthrop, 
Jr.,  wrote  from  Hartford  that  Connecticut  exported  large  quantities  of  biscuit, 
peas,  beef,  butter,  etc.,  to  Barbados,  Newfoundland,  and  elsewhere.  Winthrop 
Papers  IV.  In  1664,  New  Plymouth  added  a  clause  to  the  oath  taken  by  its 
Governor,  binding  him  to  obey  the  Act  of  Navigation.  Records  of  New 
Plymouth,  Laws  1623-1682,  p.  159. 

2  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1660;  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  402. 


^ 


I 


ll 


246 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


other  West  Indian  islands.  Part  of  these  supplies  came  from 
the  neighboring  colonies.  In  return,  they  brought  back  sugar 
and  tobacco,  which  the  Commissioners  said  "they  after  send 
for  England."  The  exports  to  England  consisted  mainly  of 
the  large  masts  required  by  the  ships  of  the  line  in  the  Royal 
Navy,  which  were  scarce  at  all  times  in  Europe,  and  were 
especially  difficult  to  obtain  during  time  of  war,  when  the 
communications  with  the  Baltic  countries  were  precarious. 
During  the  Dutch  war  of  1665-1667,  England  drew  freely 
upon  the  supply  in  New  England.  From  England,  Massa- 
chusetts imported  wearing  apparel,  textiles,  and  utensils.^ 
The  colony's  comparatively  extensive  trade  was  carried 
well-nigh  exclusively  in  its  own  shipping.  In  1665,  Mas- 
sachusetts had  about  132  ships,  of  which  forty  were  from  40 
to  100  tons,  and  twelve  were  even  larger.^  Nearly  all  these 
ships  were  built  in  the  colony,  and  unquestionably  this  de- 
velopment was  in  part  due  to  the  stimulus  given  by  the  Eng- 
lish Navigation  Act.  But  in  addition  Massachusetts,  like 
Virginia,  gave  preferential  treatment  to  its  own  shipping. 
By  a  law  of  1667  all  vessels  of  above  twenty  tons  not  be- 
longing to  Massachusetts  had  to  pay  tonnage  dues  in  gun- 
powder for  every  voyage  made  there.^ 

1  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  1 103,  1336,  1660;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  390,  391; 
N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  110-113;  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  ff.  402, 
434;  Richard  Blome,  A  Description  of  the  Island  of  Jamaica  (London, 
1672),  p.  179. 

2  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  IV,  Part  11,  p.  203.  In  167 1,  the  Council  for  Foreign 
Plantations  was  informed  that  New  England  had  about  200  vessels,  of  which 
8  or  10  were  of  200  tons  burden.     C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  232. 

*  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  IV,  Part  11,  pp.  331,  332. 


MASSACHUSETTS 


247 


Already  before  the  appointment  in  1664  of  the  royal  Com- 
missioners, Massachusetts  had  taken  steps  to  make  the  Act 
of  Navigation  efifective  within  its  bounds.  In  the  spring  of 
1663,  on  receipt  of  a  petition  from  several  inhabitants  of 
the  colony,  the  General  Court  ordered  Secretary  Rawson 
to  take  bonds  from  vessels  loading  the  enumerated  com- 
modities.^ Later  in  the  year,  in  response  to  the  circular 
letter  of  the  Privy  Council  enjoining  upon  the  colonies  a 
strict  observance  of  these  laws,  the  General  Court  appointed 
officers  at  Boston  and  other  ports  to  seize  unfree  vessels,  to 
take  the  enumeration  bonds,  to  keep  an  account  of  all 
vessels  arriving  and  departing,  and  to  send  these  accoimts 
together  with  the  copies  of  all  bonds  to  the  Governor,  who 
should  transmit  them  to  the  authorities  in  London.^  These 
orders  were  carried  into  effect,  and  Secretary  Rawson  in  1664 
sent  to  Sir  John  Wolstenholme  "eleven  copies  of  bonds'* 
and  a  copy  of  the  order  of  the  General  Court  "in  pursuance 
of  the  act  of  navigation."  ^  Thus  at  this  time  Massachusetts 
unequivocally  recognized  the  legal  force  of  this  law  within 
its  jurisdiction. 

The  royal  Commissioners  of  1664  were  especially  in- 
structed* to  see  that  provision  was  made  for  the  strict 
enforcement  of  the  Act  of  Navigation  and  that  careful  ac- 
counts of  all  ships  freighted  in  New  England  were  forwarded 

*  Ibid.  p.  73. 

*  Ibid.  pp.  86,  87 ;  The  Colonial  Laws  of  Massachusetts  (Boston,  1889), 
pp.  222,  223. 

*  Hutchinson  Papers  II,  p.  108.  See  also  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  IV,  Part  II, 
p.  99. 

*  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  IV,  Part  II,  p.  193 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  p.  54. 


, 


ff 


248 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


ii 


I 


once  a  year  to  the  English  customs  authorities.  It  was 
pointed  out  to  them  how  earnestly  Parliament  had  pre- 
sented this  law  to  the  King  as  of  infinite  concern  to  the  trade 
of  England  and  her  dominions,  and  how  carefully  it  had 
been  enforced  "as  a  thing  wee  well  know  the  heart  of  this 
whole  nation  are  set  vpon."  Accordingly,  the  Commis- 
sioners were  to  inform  the  Massachusetts  authorities  that 
the  English  government  could  not  but  take  notice  of  how 
much  the  Act  was  violated  in  Massachusetts,  and  "what 
ill  acts  are  practised  by  some  in  authority  there  to  enervate 
&  avoyd  the  same'';  and  they  were  further  to  see  that  all 
Massachusetts  laws  repugnant  to  this  Act  were  repealed.^ 
In  reply  to  the  accusations  in  this  instruction,  the  Mas- 
sachusetts General  Court  declared  in  1665  that  they  had 
been  misrepresented  to  the  King.  "The  act  for  trade  hath 
for  some  yeares  beene  observed  heere,  as  our  orders  will  de- 
clare," and  we  are  not  conscious,  they  further  said,  "that 
wee  haue  greatly  violated  the  same,  neither  know  wee  any 
lawe  of  ours  against  it."  ^ 

As  far  as  this  phase  of  the  royal  commission's  errand 
was  concerned,  no  fault  could  be  found  with  Massachusetts's 
attitude.  The  political  question  was  far  graver.  Massachu- 
setts recognized  a  somewhat  vague  allegiance  to  England, 
while  claiming  virtual  sovereignty  within  its  own  bounds. 

1  In  addition,  the  Commissioners  were  to  inquire  into  a  complaint  that  in 
a  specific  case  during  1661  the  Massachusetts  authorities  had  not  enforced 
the  law.  C/.  Toppan,  Randolph  I,  p.  28  n.  In  1665,  the  General  Court 
dem'ed  that  it  had  acted  unjustly  in  this  case.  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  IV,  Part  II, 
p.  202. 

2  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  IV,  Part  II,  p.  202. 


MASSACHUSETTS  249 

As  a  result  of  this  allegiance,  the  colonial  authorities  ac- 
knowledged their  obligation  to  defend  themselves  from  for- 
eign foes.     During  the  Dutch  and  French  war,  the  conduct 
of  Massachusetts  was  from  the  imperial  standpoint  on  the 
whole  satisfactory.     In  1664,  the  colony  raised  some  men 
and  money  for  the  Dutch  war^;  and,  although  in  1666  it 
refused   to  cooperate  in  the  projected   expedition  against 
Canada,  there  was  some  justification,  as  the  season  had  be- 
come so  advanced  that  success  was  more  than  doubtful.^ 
On  the  other  hand,  Massachusetts  made  a  gift  to  the  Royal 
Navy  of  some  valuable  masts,  "as  a  testimony  of  loyalty 
&  affection,"  ^  and  contributed  a  considerable  amount  of 
provisions  to  the  naval  expedition  designed  for  the  recovery 
of  the  Leeward  Islands  from  the  French.^    Lord  Willougbby 
stated  that  this  aid  was  invaluable,^  and  Charles  II  thanked 
the  colony  for  its  generosity  in  this  instance  and  in  con- 
tributing masts  to  the  EngHsh  navy.^    To  some  extent,  this 
zeal  of  Massachusetts  was  unquestionably  intended  to  ward 
off  any  possible  attack  upon  its  charter.     In  1664  and  1665, 
however,  the  English  government's  attitude  toward   the 

*  Ibid.  pp.  117,  120-122,  137,  140,  157,  158. 

2  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  120,  137,  138;  Hutchinson  Papers  II,  p.  134; 
C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1292;  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  IV,  Part  II,  pp.  316,  317,  328, 
329;  Winthrop  Papers  IV,  pp.  101-103 ;  Conn.  Col.  Rec.  II,  p.  514. 

3  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  1409, 1797 ;  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  IV,  Part  H,  pp.  318, 
327,  328,  368,  369. 

^  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1574;  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  IV,  Part  II,  pp.  345,  423 ; 
Hutchinson  Papers  II,  pp.  154,  155;  Conn.  Col.  Rec.  II,  pp.  515,  516 1 
Winthrop  Papers  IV,  pp.  11 7-1 19. 

^  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1648. 

« Ibid.  no.  1798;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  20,  31. 


I 


I 


■k\ 


250 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


colony  was  decidedly  conciliatory  and  there  was  no  inten- 
tion whatsoever  of  taking  such  proceedings.^  But  there 
was  a  radical  difference  between  the  English  government's 
interpretation  of  the  scope  of  this  patent  and  that  of 
Massachusetts. 

When  the  royal  Commissioners  arrived  in  Massachusetts, 
they  found  that  justice  was  being  administered  in  the  King's 
name,  but  they  were  not  permitted  to  hear  cases  on  the 
ground  that  the  General  Court  was  the  supreme  judicature 
in  the  colony.  "They  hope,"  these  Commissioners  re- 
ported, "by  writing  to  tire  the  King,  the  Lord  Chancellor, 
and  the  Secretaries,  and  say  they  can  easily  spin  out  seven 
years  by  writing  and  before  that  time  a  change  may  come ; 
nay  some  have  dared  to  say,  who  knows  what  the  event  of 
this  Dutch  war  may  be.  .  .  .  Many  times  in  their  lawes 
(they)  stile  themselves  this  State,  this  Comon-wealth,  & 
now  believe  themselves  to  be  so."  ^  After  these  reports  had 
been  duly  considered,  in  the  spring  of  1666  Charles  II  wrote 
to  the  New  England  colonies  that  he  was  pleased  at  the 

1  In  1666,  the  distinguished  Enghsh  scientist,  Robert  Boyle,  wrote  from 
London  to  John  Endicott  in  Massachusetts  about  the  favorable  inclination 
he  had  found  in  the  King  and  Clarendon  towards  New  England.  'Though 
Clarendon,'  he  continued,  'again  repeated  and  confirmed  the  assurance  he 
authorized  me  to  give  your  friends  in  the  city,  yet  I  cannot  but  acquaint 
you  with  this,  observing  that  in  your  last  addresses  to  His  Majesty  and  letters 
to  Clarendon  there  are  some  passages  that  were  much  more  unexpected 
than  welcome,  in  so  much  that  not  only  those  who  are  concerned  in  your 
affairs,  but  the  most  considerable  persons  that  favor  you  in  England,  have 
expressed  to  me  their  being  unsatisfied  in  more  particulars  than  I  am  speak- 
ing of.'    Winthrop  Papers  III,  pp.  401,  402. 

2  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  434;  N  .Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  no- 
113  ;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1103. 


\ 


MASSACHUSETTS    . 


251 


treatment  accorded  to  the  Commissioners  by  all  of  them  ex- 
cept Massachusetts,  whose  denial  of  appeals  from  their  judg- 
ments was  "a  matter  of  such  high  consequence  as  every  man 
discerns  where  it  must  end. "  Therefore,  Massachusetts  was 
commanded  to  appoint  persons  to  attend  the  government  in 
England,  so  that  the  question  might  be  settled.  At  the  same 
time  assurances  were  given  that  the  charter  would  not  be 
infringed.^  The  prediction  of  the  Commissioners,  however, 
came  true.  Massachusetts  evaded  the  summons  and  ap- 
pointed no  agents,^  apparently  trusting  to  the  patent  dis- 
inclination of  the  Enghsh  government  to  force  matters  to 
an  issue. 

During  the  subsequent  five  years  this  troublesome  question 
was  not  again  raised,  primarily  because  the  Enghsh  govern- 
ment was  not  sufficiently  interested  in  this  region  to  use  force 
in  order  to  secure  the  submission  of  Massachusetts.    The 
Enghsh  statesmen  could  well  ask  themselves,  what  would 
be  the  national  advantage  even  if,  after  the  expenditure  of 
much  time  and  energy,  their  views  were  enforced.     At  this 
time  many  in  England,  apparently  without  much  regret,  re- 
garded Massachusetts  as  on  the  verge  of  casting  off  all  allegi- 
ance to  the  mother  country.     In  1671,  however,  this  question 
came  up  prominently  again,  mainly  through  the  claims  of 
Ferdmando  Gorges  to  Maine  and  of  Robert  Mason  to  New 
Hampshire.     Massachusetts  had  overturned  the  government 
that  the  royal  Commissioners  of   1664  had  organized  in 
Maine,   and  refused  to  recognize  Gorges's  rights  to  this 
country.    New   Hampshire    had    been    virtually    annexed 


*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1171. 


*  Ibid.  no.  1297. 


! 


I 


III 


I 


Hji.  '  Jht'. 


I 


f 


I 


232  THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 

without  any  legal  warrant.^  Both  of  these  steps,  however, 
were  taken  in  agreement  with  the  wishes  of  the  majority  of 
the  people  in  these  two  districts.  Through  the  petitions  of 
Mason  and  Gorges,  this  matter  was  brought  before  the 
Council  for  Foreign  Plantations. 

At  its  session  of  May  26,  1671,  Evelyn  reports,  what  was 
"most  insisted  on  was  to  know  the  condition  of  New  Eng- 
land, which  appearmg  to  be  very  independent  as  to  their 
regard  to  Old  England,  or  his  Majesty,  rich  and  strong  as 
they  now  were,  there  were  great  debates  in  what  style  to  write 
to  them ;  for  the  condition  of  that  Colony  was  such,  that 
they  were  able  to  contest  with  all  other  Plantations  about 
them,  and  there  was  fear  of  their  breaking  from  aU  depen- 
dence on  this  nation.''    Some  of  the  Council  "  were  for  send- 
ing them  a  menacing  letter,  which  those  who  better  under- 
stood the  peevish  and  touchy  humour  of  that  Colony  were 
utterly  against,"  and  it  was  finally  decided  in  the  first 
place  to  secure  accurate  information  about  the  state  of 
New  England.2    Ten  days  later,^  there  was  a  long  debate 
in  the  Council  on  New  England,  "but  at  length  it  was  con- 
cluded that,  if  any,  it  should  be  only  a  conciliating  paper 
at  first,  or  civil  letter,  till  we  had  better  information  of  the 
present  face  of  things,  since  we  understood  they  were  a  people 
almost  upon  the  very  brink  of  renouncing  any  dependence 
on  the  Crown."    On  August  3,  the  same  subject  again  came 
up,  and  it  was  debated,  whether  or  no  to  send  "a  Deputy" 
to  New  England  to  require  Massachusetts  to  recognize 

I  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  543,  544;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  20,  31,  171,  208. 
»  Evelyn,  May  26,  1671.  '  Ibid.  June  6, 1671. 


i^W^Wt  j"»iifti 


MASSACHUSETTS 


253 


the  rights  of  Mason  and  Gorges,  and  "with  secret  instruc- 
tions to  inform  us  of  the  condition  of  those  Colonies,  and 
whether  they  were  of  such  power  as  to  be  able  to  resist 
his  Majesty,  and  declare  for  themselves  as  independent  of 
the  Crown,  which  we  were  told,  and  which  of  late  years 
made  them  refractory."  The  Council  determined  to  advise 
the  King  to  send  commissioners  to  New  England  to  adjust 
the  disputed  boundaries  and  "with  some  other  instructions" 
as  well.^  The  government  adopted  this  recommendation, 
and  decided  to  send  the  commissioners  in  the  spring  of 
1672.  On  April  30,  1672,  the  Plantation  Council  was  in- 
formed that  the  King  had  actually  named  commission- 

1  Evelyn,  August  3,  167 1 ;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  208.  Among  the  Pepys 
Manuscripts  at  Magdalene  College,  Cambridge,  is  a  memorandum,  ap- 
parently of  about  this  time,  wherein  Evelyn  after  commenting  upon  the 
military  strength  of  New  England  wrote :  "When  all  is  said  to  deter  us  from 
attempting  anything  of  force  upon  them  (which  yet  were  not  impossible) 
if  New  Engd.  finds  that  his  Ma"®  takes  care  of  their  Mim'sters  and  will 
confirm  them  a  better  subsistence  (for  which  many  of  them  extremely  begin 
to  complain)  you  disarm  them  of  their  zeal,  which  is  their  chief  Artillery  and 
Ammunition.  In  sum,  N.  England  is  to  be  gained  by  either  policy  or  force, 
so  the  means  be  prudently  carried  on."  Pepys  MSS.  (H.M.C.  191 1), 
pp.  270,  271.  The  President  of  the  Council,  Sandwich,  urged  a  moderate 
course.  On  July  2,  1671,  he  wrote :  "  Our  principall  care  then  must  be  to 
regulate  this  people  and  gett  as  much  hand  in  theire  government  as  wee  can, 
to  enable  us  to  keepe  off  prejudice  from  us  as  long  as  wee  can.  I  take  the 
way  of  roughnesse  and  peremptory  orders,  with  force  to  backe  them,  to  be 
utterly  unadviseable.  For  they  are  already  too  strong  to  be  compelled  . . . 
I  beleeve  if  wee  use  severity  towards  them  in  theire  Government  civill  or 
religious,  that  they  will  (being  made  desperate)  sett  up  for  themselves  and 
reject  us."  His  plan  "  to  prevent  the  growing  power  "  of  Massachusetts  in- 
cluded the  sending  of  royal  commissioners  to  New  England,  who  should  in- 
troduce and  establish  crown  government  in  Rhode  Island,  Maine,  New 
Hampshire,  and  Kennebec.    F.  R.  Harris,  op.  cit.  II,  pp.  338-341. 


i 


i 


254 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


ers/  but  at  the  last  moment  the  plan  was  abandoned  owing 
to  the  serious  nature  of  the  war  with  the  Dutch,  in  which 
England  had  shortly  before  this  become  involved.  These 
hostihties  deferred  for  three  years  all  attempts  to  settle 
the  New  England  question. 

When  urging  their  claims  to  New  Hampshire  and  Maine, 
Mason  and  Gorges  had  placed  great  stress  upon  the  eco- 
nomic value  of  these  territories  to  the  Empire.  In  a  me- 
morial of  1671,2  Mason  stated  that  New  Hampshire  was  the 
best  developed  and  most  populous  place  in  New  England ; 
that  it  abounded  in  com,  cattle,  timber  and  fish;  that  it 
had  an  extensive  trade  and  considerable  shipping,  import- 
ing and  exporting  yearly  thousands  of  tons,  "which  neuer 
pays  any  custome  to  the  Kirfg."  These  customs,  if  looked 
after,  he  said,  might  amount  to  £4000  yearly.'  In  the 
following  year,  the  King  was  urged  to  interfere  on  behalf 
of  Gorges  in  order  to  prevent  the  great  destruction  among 
the  mast  trees  of  Maine,  where  an  abundant  supply  was 
available  for  the  Royal  Navy.*    In  1674,^  another  memorial 

1  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  208.     See  also  Evelyn,  Feb.  12, 1672. 

2  C.  0.  1/27,  56;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  294. 

'According  to  Mason,  New  Hampshire's  yearly  exports  were  20,000 
tons  of  lumber,  10,000  quintals  of  fish,  10  shiploads  of  masts,  and  several 
thousand  beaver  and  otter  skins.  Its  imports  were  300  tons  of  wine  and 
brandy,  200  tons  of  goods  from  the  Leeward  Islands,  and  2000  tons  of  salt. 
The  Commissioners  of  1664  had  reported  that  in  New  Hampshire  were  ob- 
tained excellent  masts,  that  there  were  over  20  saw-mills  upon  the  Piscat- 
aqua  River,  and  that  "heere  are  great  store  of  Pipe-staves  made,  &  great 
Store  of  good  Timber  spoyled."  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  427 ; 
C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1 103. 

*  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  448. 

» Ibid.  pp.  579-582. 


MASSACHUSETTS 


255 


stated  that  the  prosperity  of  New  England  was  greatly 
hindered  by  these  territorial  controversies  and  prayed  the 
King  to  purchase  the  rights  of  Mason  and  Gorges.  The 
writer  of  this  petition  was  enthusiastic  about  the  agricultural 
and  mineral  resources  of  New  Hampshire  and  Maine.  He 
claimed  that  England  could  be  supplied  thence  with  masts, 
tar,  timber,  and  other  naval  stores  at  cheaper  rates  than  those 
current  in  Europe  (which  would  conduce  to  the  national 
safety),  and  that  a  considerable  trade  in  beaver  and  other 
furs  could  be  established  with  the  Indians. 

It  was  not  these  optimistic  accounts  of  the  economic 
possibilities  of  New  Hampshire  and  Maine  that  led  the 
English  government  seriously  to  take  in  hand  this  entire 
question,  when  in  1675  Mason  and  Gorges  renewed  their 
claims.^  Nor  would  the  opinion  of 'the  law  officers  of  the 
Crown  that  these  claims  were  valid  ^  in  itself  have  sufficed 
to  induce  the  government  to  grapple  with  this  thorny 
problem.  But  at  this  time  those  in  charge  of  colonial 
affairs  became  keenly  alive  to  the  fact  that  Massachu- 
setts's  trade  was  developing  along  lines  that  threatened 
to  nullify  the  efforts  of  the  English  statesmen  and  to  dis- 
rupt the  colonial  system  in  its  very  inception.  It  was  of 
relatively  little  importance  to  England  to  what  extent 
Massachusetts  violated  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation 
in  so  far  as  that  colony  alone  was  concerned.  For  Mas- 
sachusetts produced  no  one  of  the  enumerated  commod- 
ities^ and  furnished  a  comparatively  small  market  for 

*  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  200,  201,  211,  222-224. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  232,  233.  3  Q-,  ^^  p  281. 


' 


I 


I 
^ 

i 


:S-&^ 


^■^  ir^'iTliiiCa 


^1 


|l 


I 


1 


at 


256 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


English  manufactures.  But  it  became  a  most  serious  matter 
when  the  New  England  traders  took  the  sugar  and  tobacco 
of  the  other  colonies  directly  to  Europe,  and  brought  back 
to  them  European  goods  which  had  not  passed  through 
England.  If  unchecked,  this  trade  might  in  the  end  nuUify 
all  the  benefits  that  England  expected  to  derive  from  the 
other  colonies.  In  addition,  the  New  England  fisheries 
competed  with  those  at  Newfoundland  and  lessened  their 
value  as  a  nursery  of  seamen.  By  this  time  also,  the  New 
England  traders  had  acquired  a  strong  position  in  the 
Yucatan  logwood  trade,  which  threatened  to  involve 
England  in  fresh  hostilities  with  Spain.  As  these  traders 
carried  this  logwood  directly  to  the  countries  of  continental 
Europe,  England's  industrial  rivals  were  supplied  with  this 
dye-stuff  as  cheaply  as  the  mother  country  and  without 
the  unpleasant  prospect  of  war  with  Spain.^  Detailed 
reports  of  this  general  nature  had  reached  England  and  had 
led  to  the  passage  by  Parliament  of  the  Act  of  1673  imposing 
the  plantation  duties.  This  measure  had  not  proven  itself 
an  effective  remedy,  and  in  1675  and  1676  the  complaints 

1  In  1675,  the  Governor  of  Jamaica,  Lord  Vaughan,  wrote  to  Secretary 
Williamson  that  the  New  England  traders  were  reaping  the  whole  profit  from 
the  logwood  trade,  'and  his  Majesty  receives  no  Customs  for  it,  and  miless 
his  Majesty's  authority  be  settled  there  they  will,  under  colour  of  their  pa- 
tent, make  the  trade  of  most  of  the  Plantations  (as  they  have  their  own) 
independent  of  that  of  England,  nor  will  the  late  Act  of  Parliament  restrain 
them.'  'It  much  imports  his  Majesty's  interest  that  this  point  be  timely 
considered,'  he  added,  'and  possibly  this  is  a  juncture  his  authority  might  be 
easily  established,  the  Indians  being  in  rebellion  against  Plymouth  and  the 
Massachusetts,  and  not  Uke  to  be  reduced  this  winter.'  C.  C.  1675-1676, 
p.  282. 


MASSACHUSETTS 


257 


became  so  insistent  and  so  circumstantial  that  the  govern- 
ment realized  the  gravity  of  the  situation  and  was  forced 
to  take  steps  to  rectify  this  dangerous  state  of  affairs.^ 

Of  the  memorials  presented  to  the  government  one  of  the 
most  important  was  that  of  Captain  Wyborneof  H.M.S. 
Garland,  who  in  1673  had  gone  to  Boston  to  refit  and  had 
remained  there  for  three  months.^    Coming  from  such  a 

^  The  stress  laid  on  these  complaints  in  England  is  well  illustrated  by  the 
following  correspondence.  In  the  fall  of  1674,  Major  Robert  Thomson,  a 
friend  of  Massachusetts,  wrote  from  England  to  Governor  Leverett  about 
the  dissatisfaction  in  some  great  ministers  of  state,  because  the  New  England 
traders  were  defrauding  the  customs  by  shipping  tobacco  directly  to  Europe. 
"I  know  this  is  don  by  particular  persons,  and  possibly  unknowne  to  the 
government,"  he  wrote,  "yet  I  know  not  how  to  excuse  it."  Accordingly,  he 
advised  Leverett  to  prevent  such  practices  in  the  future,  and  if  any  vessels 
escaped  the  authorities  to  inform  against  them,  Leverett 's  reply  shows  no 
realization  of  the  seriousness  of  such  charges  from  the  English  viewpoint. 
He  wrote  to  Thomson  that  he  did  not  understand  that  any  but  one  vessel 
had  gone  from  their  ports  this  year  and  that  this  vessel  was  bound  for  Eng- 
land and  was  laden  mainly  with  logwood.  If  any  of  their  ships  did  take 
tobacco  directly  to  Europe,  he  added,  they  must  have  sailed  from  Virginia, 
but  he  supposed  that  the  payment  of  the  1673  export  duties  there  would  in 
the  future  remove  these  complaints.  "For  myself,"  he  concluded,  "I  am 
not  concerned  therein,  the  general  court  haveing  left  the  care  of  that  affair 
with  the  secretary,  onely  shall  advertise  him  to  more  circumspection  in  his 
place."  In  reply,  Thomson  wrote  early  in  1675  that  the  payment  of  the 
1673  duties  did  not  allow  the  direct  exportation  of  the  enumerated  products 
to  foreign  parts.  "I  should  be  sorry,"  he  continued,  "that  his  Majestic 
should  have  any  ground  of  offence  in  this  kind,  for  a  little  profitt  to  some 
particular  persons  to  be  an  occasion  of  depriveing  the  whole  of  their  chiefest 
injoyments.  Its  objected  here  by  some  that  you  have  noe  such  law  there, 
and  soe  will  not  judg  by  our  lawes  in  exporting  or  importing  of  goods  to  or 
from  foraine  kingdomes.  If  it  be  soe,  as  a  true  friend  to  you,  I  would  advise 
it  be  one  of  the  first  things  you  doe  to  prevent  greater  evills."  Hutchinson 
Papers  II,  pp.  195,  201,  202,  204. 

2  C.  O.  1/35,  so;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  306-308. 

s  (2) 


l! 


1^ 


258 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


source  his  statements  unquestionably  carried  great  weight, 
but  in  estimating  their  accuracy  it  should  not  be  forgotten 
that  Wyborne  was  a  prejudiced  witness,  having  been  pubUcly 
insulted  in  the  colony.^  This  naval  captain  reported  that 
the  trade  of  New  England  was  very  great  both  to  the  Eng- 
lish West  Indies,  "as  allso  to  most  parts  of  Europe  so  that 
it  is  become  a  Magasine  both  of  all  American  &  European 
Commodityes  for  the  furnishing  &  supplying  of  the  seaverall 
Countreys  &  that  during  his  stay  ships  dayly  arrived  from 
Spain  ffrance  Holland  &  Canareys  bringing  all  sorts  of  Wines 
Linins  Silks  &  fruits  which  they  transport  to  all  the  other 
plantations  taking  American  commodityes  in  exchange 
which  they  carry  back  to  the  aforesaid  Kingdomes  without 
coming  to  England."  Wyborne  said  that  he  had  complained 
of  this  illegal  trade  to  the  Boston  magistrates,  but  was  un- 
able to  secure  any  satisfaction.^  Nor  would  they  assist  him 
in  his  scheme  to  recapture  New  York  from  the  Dutch.  *By 
their  discourse,'  he  added,  'they  look  upon  themselves  as  a 
free  State,  not  at  all  to  be  interested  in  the  King's  differences 
with  other  nations.' 

Early  in  1676,  shortly  after  this  memorial  was  considered, 
a  number  of  EngHsh  merchants  complained  to  the  King 

» Chalmers,  Political  Annals  (London,  1780),  p.  434. 

2  In  1677,  Sir  Thomas  Lynch  told  the  Lords  of  Trade  that,  while  he  was 
Lieutenant-Governor  of  Jamaica,  a  New  England  ship  had  come  there 
directly  from  France  with  brandy,  and  that,  on  his  refusing  to  allow  her 
to  trade,  she  had  sailed  to  New  England,  where  Captain  Wyborne  tried 
to  seize  her,  but  was  prevented  by  the  magistrates.  C.  O.  391/2,  f.  53; 
C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  102,  103;  Toppan,  Randolph  II,  pp.  268-270;  P.  C. 
Cal.  I,  p.  710. 


I 


MASSACHUSETTS 


259 


that  of  late  the  inhabitants  of  New  England  traded  directly 
to  most  parts  of  Europe  and  encouraged  strangers  to  trade 
with  them,  *  whereby  all  sorts  of  merchandise  of  the  produce 
of  Europe  are  imported  directly  into  New  England,  and 
thence  carried  to  all  the  other  of  the  King's  dominions  in 
America,  and  sold  at  far  cheaper  rates  than  any  that  can  be 
sent  from  hence,  and  that  they  take  in  exchange  the  com- 
modities of  the  Plantations  which  are  transported  to  Europe 
without  coming  to  England,  so  that  New  England  is  become 
the  great  mart  and  staple,  by  which  means  the  navigation  of 
the  kingdom  is  greatly  prejudiced,  the  King's  revenue  in- 
expressibly impaired,  the  price  of  home  and  foreign  com- 
modities lessened,  trade  decreased,  and  the  King's  subjects 
much  impoverished.'  ^ 

These  and  similar  complaints,  as  well  as  the  claims  of 
Mason  and  Gorges,  were  considered  by  the  Lords  of  Trade, 
who  naturally  turned  to  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs 
for  further  information.^  This  board  reported  ^  that  while 
they  had  hoped  that  the  appointment  of  customs  ofl&cials 
in  the  colonies  would  prove  effective,  yet  there  was  some  ille- 
gal trade  in  New  England,  but  they  had  'nothing  on  which 
to  ground  a  calculation  of  the  particular  detriment  thus 
arising.'  *  At  first,  the  Lords  of  Trade  were  in  favor  of 
sending  commissioners  to  New  England  as  had  been  done 

»  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  337.  *  Ihid.  p.  224. 

'  C.  O.  1/34,  nos.  74,  75 ;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  231. 

*  On  October  11,  1675,  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  reported  that 
they  had  received  from  the  Secretary  of  Massachusetts  eight  bonds  for 
enumerated  commodities,  which  he  said  were  all  that  had  been  taken  in 
1674.     C.  O.  324/4,  ff.  22-24;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  296-298. 


\[ 


,; 


I 


} 


m 

Li     ij 


I 


1 


1 


260 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


ten  years  before.^  In  the  spring  of  1675,  they  reported  in 
favor  of  sending  five  men  'of  great  sobriety  and  discretion '2; 
but  towards  the  end  of  the  year  they  stated  that  such  a  step, 
'besides  the  charge,  uncertainty  of  success  and  danger  of 
affront,  would  look  like  awarding  execution  on  those  people 
before  they  were  heard,'  and  therefore  they  advised  that  a 
copy  of  the  complaints  of  Mason  and  Gorges  be  sent  to  Mas- 
sachusetts and  that  the  colony  be  required  to  send  representa- 
tives to  England  to  answer  them.^  Accordingly,  in  March 
of  1676,  Charles  II  wrote  to  the  Massachusetts  authorities 
about  the  claims  of  Mason  and  Gorges  and  stated  that  it 
was  'high  time  to  afford  a  solemn  hearing,'  so  that  justice 
should  be  administered  to  all.  He  commanded  them  to 
send  to  England  within  six  months  agents  fully  instructed 
and  empowered  to  answer  these  claims.^  It  was  evidently 
deemed  advisable  to  reopen  the  entire  question  of  Massa- 
chusetts's  relations  to  England  by  means  of  this  one  specific 
point.  No  mention  was  made  of  the  colony's  evasion 
of  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation.  This  subject  was 
purposely  deferred,  as  it  was  realized  that  it  was  first  req- 
uisite 'to  do  something  effectual  for  the  better  regulation 
of  that  Government,  or  else  aU  hopes  of  it  may  be  hereafter 
lost.'  ^  Circular  letters  were,  however,  again  sent  to  the 
Governors   in   the   royal   colonies,  enjoining   a   strict  en- 

iC.  O.  1/34,  nos.  68,  69;    C.  O.  5/903,  ff-   9-13;    C.  C.  167 5-1676, 
pp.  222-224.    CJ.  C.  O.  1/18,  46. 

2  C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  224. 

3  Ihid.  pp.  308,  322.    C/.  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  640,  641. 

*  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  358,  360,  361 ;  Toppan,  Randolph  II,  pp.  194-196. 
^  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  350,  361,  362. 


MASSACHUSETTS 


261 


forcement  of  these  laws,  which  would  have  put  a  stop  to  a 
considerable  part  of  the  illegal  trade  of  the  New  Englanders.^ 
It  was  in  connection  with  these  royal  commands  that  Ed- 
ward Randolph's  long  connection  with  the  colonies  began. 
He  was  entrusted  with  the  delivery  of  the  King's  letter  and 
the  accompanying  documents,  and  was  commanded  to  bring 
back  the  colony's  answer.^  In  addition,  Randolph  was  in- 
structed to  collect  information  as  to  what  laws  were  in  force 
derogatory  to  those  of  England,  as  to  the  colony's  military 
strength,  trade,  commerce,  public  revenue,  disposition  to- 
ward England,  and  observance  of  the  laws  of  trade  and  navi- 
gation. A  number  of  statements  as  to  the  size  of  New 
England's  population,  its  shipping,  iron-works,  its  trade  and 
industry  were  given  to  him  for  confirmation  or  correction  as 
the  facts  ascertained  might  warrant.  The  lack  of  reliable 
information  was  evidently  keenly  felt.^ 

1  C.  0.  324/4,  ff.  37-39;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  369-371,  381.  See  also 
Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  p.  170.  According  to  Williamson's  notes  it 
was  also  planned  at  this  time  to  send  customs  officials  to  New  England. 
Cal.  Dom.  1675-1676,  p.  574. 

2  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  358, 360,  361 ;  Toppan,  Randolph  11,  pp.  194-196; 
Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  pp.  28,  150. 

'  Among  the  statements  whose  reUability  Randolph  was  to  investigate 
was  one  to  the  effect  that  the  poptdation  of  New  England  was  120,000,  of 
whom  16,000  were  able  to  bear  arms.  C.  O.  5/903,  ff.  103-105 ;  Brit.  Mus., 
Egerton  MSS.  2395,  f.  522 ;  Toppan,  Randolph  II,  pp.  198-201 ;  C.  C. 
1675-1676,  pp.  361,  362.  In  1675,  WiUiam  Harris,  a  well-known  New 
Englander  (see  I.  B.  Richman,  Rhode  Island  II,  pp.  207  et  passim,  and 
Osgood,  op.  cit.  II,  pp.  337  et  seq.),  had  given  considerable  information  about 
the  trade  of  these  colonies.  He  stated  that  the  number  of  men  capable  of 
bearing  arms  was  between  7000  and  8000  foot  and  about  650  horse,  and 
that  Massachusetts  built  every  year  twelve  ships  of  from  40  to  80  tons. 
C.  O.  1/34,  nos.  59,  66;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  213,  220-222.    In  connection 


=1 


11 


-^L^J^IJ^^  ^_ 


262 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


\ 


4^ 


^ 


t. 


While  Randolph  was  engaged  in  this  mission,  the  English 
government  continued  to  investigate  the  question  of  illegal 
trade  in  New  England.  On  April  10,  1676,  was  read  before 
the  Lords  of  Trade  a  petition  from  the  mercers  and  silk- 
weavers  of  London,  stating  that  formerly  large  quantities 
of  silks  had  been  shipped  from  England  to  the  colonies,  but 
that  in  recent  years  they  had  been  supplied  by  the  New 
England  traders  with  goods  imported  directly  from  France, 
Italy,  and  other  foreign  countries,  "so  that  yo^  pet"  send 
little  or  none  thither,  by  meanes  whereof  they  are  many  of 
them  totally  ruined,  others  of  them  greatly  hurt,  and  most 
of  them  very  much  prejudiced/'  In  addition  to  this  illegal 
importation  of  silks  and  stuffs,  they  asserted  that  the  New 
Englanders  furnished  the  other  colonies  with  brandy,  wine, 
oil,  and  other  commodities,  all  of  which  by  law  ought  to 
be  shipped  from  England  and  pay  customs  there,  and  that 
the  total  loss  to  the  revenue  on  these  accounts  "would 
amount   to   above  sixty  thousand  pounds  per  Annum."  ^ 

with  the  general  policy  towards  New  England  at  this  time  and  more  specifi- 
cally Randolph's  mission,  Professor  Channing  writes  that  "  the  Commis- 
sioners of  the  Customs  and  William  Blathwayt,  secretary  to  the  Lords  of 
Trade,  were  the  moving  spirits  in  this  enterprise."  Channing,  History  of 
the  United  States  II,  p.  158.  At  this  time,  Blathwayt  had  as  yet  no  in- 
fluence, having  been  employed  only  a  few  months,  since  September  29, 
1675,  in  a  minor  capacity,  as  assistant  to  Sir  Robert  Southwell  (the  Clerk 
of  the  Council  attending  the  Lords  of  Trade),  with  a  salary  of  £150.  Cal. 
Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  pp.  249,  282,  299;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  664,  665. 

^  C.  O.  5/903,  ff.  106-108;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  374,375.  At  this 
time,  information  was  also  received  that  the  New  England  traders  were 
impUcated  in  the  illegal  importation  of  tobacco  into  Ireland  which  was 
giving  the  government  so  much  trouble.  Cal.  Dom.  1676-1677,  pp.  586, 
587. 


MASSACHUSETTS 


263 


Although  grossly  exaggerated,  these  statements  demand- 
ed further  investigation,  and  the  Lords  of  Trade  summoned 
before  them  a  number  of  men  qualified  to  give  informa- 
tion, including  some  who  were  to  be  found  at  the  Exchange, 
'upon  the  New  England  Walk.' ^  On  their  appearance 
before  the  Lords  of  Trade,  some  of  the  New  England  mer- 
chants "were  shie  to  unfold  y^  mistery  thereof,  others 
pretended  Ignorance,  but  the  most  of  them  declared  plainly, 
how  all  sorts  of  goods  growing  in  his  Ma^'f'  other  Plantations 
were  brought  to  New  England  on  paym*  of  y^  duties  pay- 
able by  the  Act  for  going  from  one  plantation  to  another." 
With  these  goods,  and  often  also  with  cargoes  of  logwood,^ 
they  then  sailed  to  all  parts  of  Europe,  returning  with  mer- 
chandise to  the  colonies  "without  euer  calling  at  Old  Eng- 
land, but  when  they  thought  fitt,"  so  that  wines,  brandies 
and  other  commodities  were  sold  in  the  colonies  for  one- 
fifth  less  than  the  EngHsh  merchants  trading  according  to 
law  could  afford  to  furnish  them.  This,  they  claimed, 
would  entirely  destroy  England's  trade  to  the  colonies  "and 
leave  no  sort  of  dependancy  in  that  place  from  hence." 
Thereupon  the  Lords  of  Trade,  thinking  it  "inconvenient 
to  ravel  into  any  of  the  past  miscarriages,  but  to  prevent  the 
mischief  in  the  future"  resolved:  i,  that  all  the  colonial 
Governors  should  be  obliged  to  take  the  oaths  to  obey  the 
Acts  of  Trade  and  Navigation;    2,   that  royal  customs 

iC.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  377. 

2  A  month  after  this,  Edward  Cranfield  told  the  Lords  of  Trade  that 
while  he  was  in  America  'seventeen  sail  of  New  England  ships  with  logwood 
were  bound  to  France  whence  they  bring  the  commodities  of  that  place  to 
sell  in  the  West  Indies.'     C.  C.  1675-1676,  p.  398. 


I 


i 

t 

■  ! 


w 


I 

■i 


fi 


r 


264 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


officials  should  be  established  in  New  England  as  in  the  other 
colonies  and,  "in  case  of  refusall  in  them  to  admitt  such 
Officers,  that  the  rest  of  the  Plantations  should  be  forbid  to 
allowe  them  any  liberty  or  intercourse  of  Trade" ;  3,  that 
the  captains  of  the  frigates  of  the  navy  should  be  instructed 
to  seize  and  bring  in  offenders  "that  avoided  to  come  and 
make  their  Entries  here  in  England."  ^  But  beyond  pre- 
paring a  new  form  of  oath  and  taking  steps  to  see  that  it 
was  administered  to  the  royal  Governors,^  nothing  further 
was  done,  presumably  because  it  was  thought  advisable  to 
await  the  answer  of  Massachusetts  to  the  royal  letter  and 
Randolph's  report  on  his  mission. 

When,  in  the  summer  of  1676,  Randolph  arrived  in  Boston, 
he  delivered  the  letter  to  Governor  Leverett,  who  made 
light  of  the  Mason  and  Gorges  claims,  calling  them  *imper- 
tinencies,  mistakes,  and  falsehoods,'  and  left  the  matter  to 
the  consideration  of  the  General  Court  at  its  next  session.^ 
Leverett  with  the  other  colonial  authorities  regarded  Ran- 
dolph as  Mason's  agent,^  and  treated  him  with  scant  courtesy, 
paying  him  none  of  the  respect  due  to  an  official  messenger 
of  the  King.  Contrary  to  the  royal  instructions,  they  re- 
fused to  deliver  to  Randolph  their  answer  to  the  complaints, 

^  C.  O.  s/903,  ff.  108-110;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  379,  380.    Cf.  ibid.  pp. 

156,  381. 

2  C.  O.  324/6,  f.  sz\  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  pp.  227,  228;  P.  C.  Cal.  I, 
pp.  663,  664;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  385,  389,  390;  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676- 
1679,  pp.  170,  227. 

3  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  402,  403- 

*  Mason  was  a  brother-in-law  of  Randolph's  wife.  Goodrick,  Randolph 
VI,  p.  9. 


■mm^- 


MASSACHUSETTS 


265 


but  despatched  it  by  other  conveyance  to  England.    As  a 
result,  Randolph  was  from  the  very  start  forced  into  a 
position  of  hostility  to  those  in  power  in  Massachusetts,  and 
his  feelings  quickly  developed  into  those  of  bitter  animosity. 
This  bias  is  apparent  in  the  reports  of  his  mission  delivered 
to   the  EngHsh  government.    In  addition,   whHe  in   the 
colony,  Randolph  was  the  natural  centre  to  which  gravitated 
aU  the  malcontents  in  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  and  Massachu- 
setts.   They  fiUed  his  ears  with  their  numerous  grievances 
against  the  dominant  theocratic  oligarchy.    Hence  his  re- 
ports were  strongly  partisan  and  highly  colored,  especiaUy 
in  their  phraseology.    Some  of  the  facts  reported,  especiaUy 
those  relating  to  resources  and  population,  were  also  un- 
trustworthy, but  in  their  fundamental  statements  his  ac- 
counts were  rehable  and  were  confirmed  not  only  by  a  mass 
of  corroborative  testimony,  but  by  the  actual  course  of 
New  England  history  itself.    They  showed  conclusively, 
what  had  become  already  plainly  apparent,  that  Massachu- 
setts was  determined  to  remain  a  virtuaUy  independent 
commonwealth,  denying  to  England  anymore  than  a  merely 
nominal  authority,  and  that  the  independent  course  of  her 
traders  was  threatening  to  wreck  the  attempts  of  the  Eng- 
Hsh statesmen  to  create  a  self-contained  commercial  Empire. 
As  instructed,  Randolph  gathered  together  considerable 
information  about  the  poHtical  and  economic  conditions  of 
New  England,  and  embodied  these  facts  in  his  reports.^    He 

^Toppan,  Randolph  II,  pp.  203-209,  225-259;   C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp. 
406-409,  455,  456,  463-468;   Hutchinson  Papers  U,  pp.  210-240-    Brit 
Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  20,089,  ff.  7-20 


■; 


\\\\ 


1. 


f« 


t  * 


!• 


266 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


I 


.1'    ^1 


Stated  that  New  England  had  suffered  greatly  from  the 
recently  concluded  Indian  war,  and  that  its  commodities 
consisted  of  naval  stores,  provisions,  cattle,  and  fish,  which 
were  shipped  to  the  other  colonies  and  to  Europe.    Their 
exports  of  fish  alone  were  valued  at  £50,000  yearly.    Ran- 
dolph further  reported  that  they  launched  yearly  twenty 
vessels,  some  as  large  as  100  tons,  and  that  in  1676  thirty 
were  ordered  to  be  set  on  the  stocks  by  the  merchants  in 
England,   'who  make   their  returns  from  hence  in  new 
shipping.'    Although  the  Indian  war  had  prevented  that 
number  being    built,   yet    twelve,   some   over    160   tons, 
were  being  constructed.    In  all,  he  stated,  Massachusetts 
had   built    730   ships  of  from  6  to  250  tons.     Further, 
Randolph  reported,  that   the  iron  ore  was  excellent,  and 
that  there  were  six  forges  employed  in  working  it.    The 
population  of  Massachusetts,  including  Maine  and  New 
Hampshire,  he  estimated  at  150,000  and  that  of  Connecticut 
and  New  Plymouth  at  80,000  —  figures  far  in  excess  of  the 
actual  facts.    These  two  last  colonies,  Randolph  stated, 
observed  the  Navigation  Acts  and  were  ready  to  submit  to 
English  control.    He  also  asserted  that  in  Massachusetts, 
New  Hampshire,  and  Maine  were  many  opponents  of  the 
ruling  theocracy,  who  would  look  favorably  upon  the  es- 
tabhshment  of  royal  government. 

More  important  for  the  specific  purposes  of  this  work  was 
Randolph's  account  of  Massachusetts's  attitude  toward  the 
laws  of  trade.  This  colony,  he  stated,  traded  to  most  parts 
of  Europe,  from  which  they  imported  so  much  merchandise, 
that  little  was  left  for  the  English  merchants  to  sell.    In  one 


MASSACHUSETTS 


267 


week  during  his  stay  at  Boston,  two  vessels  *  had  arrived 
there  from  France  with  some  brandy,  wine,  and  other 
commodities  and  three  from  the  Canaries  with  wine.^  He 
further  reported  that,  some  weeks  prior  to  his  arrival,  two 
other  Boston  vessels  had  arrived  with  Canary  and  Spanish 
wines,  as  well  as  with  oil  and  other  products.  When  Ran- 
dolph complained  to  Leverett  of  these  open  violations  of 
the  law,  the  Governor  "freely  declared  that  the  laws  made 
by  the  King  and  Parliament  obHge  them  in  nothing  but 
what  consists  with  the  interest  of  New  England,  that  the 
legislative  power  abides  in  them  freely  to  make  laws  not 
repugnant  to  the  laws  of  England  by  their  charter,  and 
that  all  matters  in  difference  are  to  be  concluded  by  their 
final  determination,  denying  any  appeal  to  the  King.'' 

In  view  of  this  statement  and  the  facts  that  had  come  to 
his  notice,  it  is  not  surprising  that  Randolph  returned  to 
England  impressed  with  the  advisability  of  a  thorough 
change  in  the  political  system  of  Massachusetts.  This  he 
deemed  essential,  not  only  for  political  reasons,  but  as  a  nec- 
essary prerequisite  to  the  effective  working  of  the  economic 
poHcies  embodied  in  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation.  Al- 
though Randolph  had  confidently  predicted  that  Massachu- 
setts would  adhere  to  its  policy  of  contumacious  procrastina- 
tion and,  as  in  1666,  would  ignore  the  royal  commands  to 
send  agents,  the  colony  did  obey.  WilHam  Stoughton  and 
Peter  Bulkeley  were  appointed  to  represent  its  interests  in 
England.    These  agents  were,  however,  authorized  to  act 

1  These  two  were  Boston  ships. 

2  Of  these,  one  was  of  Boston,  one  was  EngUsh,  and  the  other  Scottish. 


I 


■« 


1 1 


I 


■  ^1 


268 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


I 


I 


.1' 


only  in  the  Mason  and  Gorges  matter.^  But  the  funda- 
mental point  in  dispute  far  transcended  these  narrow  Hmits. 
Stripped  of  all  collateral  matter,  the  naked  question  at 
issue  was  whether  Massachusetts  was  to  remain  an  Eng- 
lish colony  and  to  become  an  effective  member  of  the  Em- 
pire, or  was  to  sever  all  political  ties  with  the  mother  country. 
Unquestionably  the  existing  anomalous  conditions  could 
not  continue. 

The  uncertainty  prevailing  in  England  as  to  the  status  of 
Massachusetts  and  the  ultimate  outcome  is  well  illustrated 
in  a  report  of  Lords  of  Trade,  dated  February  6,  1677,  on 
the  rules  to  be  observed  in  issuing  passes  to  ships  trading  to 
the  colonies.  They  stated  that,  although  New  England  was 
included  in  the  colonies,  they  had  not  framed  "any  Rules  for 
Passes  thither,  inasmuch  as  they  doe  not  yet  conform  them- 
selves to  the  Laws  by  which  other  ye  plantations  doe  trade, 
but  take  a  liberty  of  Trading  to  all  manner  of  places,  where 
they  think  fit.  Soe  that  Until  Your  Ma^'*"  come  to  a  better 
understanding  touching  what  degree  of  dependance  that  Gov- 
erment  will  acknowledge  to  Your  Ma^^  or  that  Your  Ma**^ 
Officers  may  be  there  received  and  setted,  to  administer 
what  the  Laws  require  in  respect  of  Trade,"  in  conformity 
with  the  practice  of  the  other  colonies,  they  refrained  from 
proposing  any  rules  for  passes  in  that  place.  Speedy  care, 
they  added,  should  be  taken  to  come  to  some  resolution  in 
this  matter,  as  it  was  "of  great  importance  unto  Trade.''  ^ 

1  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  493-495,  S13. 

*  C.  O.  1/39,  26;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  15,  16.  This  report  was  based 
upon  one  from  Sir  George  Downing,  made  at  the  request  of  Sir  Robert 


4 


MASSACHUSETTS 


269 


Randolph's  views  regarding  the  measures  demanded  in 
this  crisis  were  embodied  in  a  memorial  presented  to  the 
government  a  short  time  after  his  return  to  England.^ 
Herein,  he  attacked  the  legal  vaHdity  of  the  Massachusetts 
charter  and  stated  that  the  colony  had  formed  itself  into  a 
commonwealth,  denying  appeals  to  England  and  not  taking 
the  oath  of  allegiance.  After  citing  various  matters  in  which 
he  claimed  that  they  had  exceeded  their  legal  powers  —  such 
as  the  coining  of  money  with  their  own  impress,  the  infliction 
of  the  death  penalty  on  religious  dissenters  —  he  asserted 
that  they  violated  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation  so  exten- 
sively that  the  EngHsh  customs  revenue  suffered  a  loss  of 
£100,000  yearly.  As  a  remedy,  he  suggested  the  use  of  the 
Enghsh  troops  then  in  Virginia  to  reduce  Massachusetts  to 
obedience  and  to  settle  that  country  under  royal  authority. 

SouthweU  on  behalf  of  the  Lords  of  Trade.  Therein  this  Harvard  graduate 
said  that  he  thought  it  would  be  convenient  if  the  colonies  had  the  rules 
for  Spanish  and  Dutch  passes,  but  that  he  knew  of  no  occasion  that 
they  might  have  for  Swedish,  Danish,  and  Turkish  passes.  Consequently, 
he  sent  rules  for  Spanish  and  Dutch  passes  for  all  the  colonies.  Downing 
then  added:  "Although  New  England  be  among  the  Plantations,  I  do  not 
suppose  the  intent  is  to  send  any  rules,  &c.,  for  passes  thither  at  present, 
they  having  their  own  government  and  doing  what  they  please,  and  not 
conforming  themselves  to  his  Majesty's  laws  relating  to  the  Plantations." 
If,  however,  the  Lords  of  Trade  should  decide  to  send  the  rules  for  passes 
there,  he  wrote,  "it  wiU  be  necessary  to  send  them  rules  in  pursuance  of 
every  treaty,  for  they  de  facto  trade  to  aU  places."  Cal.  Dom.  1676-1677, 
pp.  504,  521.  See  also  Cal.  Dom.  1677-1678,  p.  116.  In  1683,  a  writer 
pointed  out  that  "the  Government  of  New  England  (both  civil  and  Ecclesi- 
astical) do  so  differ  from  that  of  his  Majesties  other  Dominions  that  it  is 
hard  to  say  what  may  be  the  Consequence  of  it."  England's  Guide  to 
Industry  (London,  1683),  pp.  75,  76. 

^  Toppan,  Randolph  II,  pp.  265-268 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  79. 


fi 


>;ii 


'U 


270 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


I 


i 


( 


From  this  time  dates  the  movement  to  abrogate  the 
Massachusetts  charter.  To  many  this  must  have  suggested 
itself  as  the  only  means  of  escape  from  the  existing  impasse. 
Unless  Massachusetts  were  allowed  to  go  its  own  way  and 
to  become  an  independent  commonwealth  —  which  in  the 
prevailing  acute  state  of  international  rivalry  was  a  condi- 
tion that  could  not  have  lasted  —  there  was  no  other  solu- 
tion consistent  with  the  accepted  theory  of  colonization. 
Although  the  English  statesmen  were  far  from  approving  of 
many  of  the  political  tenets  of  the  Massachusetts  theoc- 
racy, the  movement  against  the  charter  did  not  spring  from 
any  opposition  to  colonial  self-government  in  itself,  but  from 
the  conviction  forced  upon  the  home  authorities  that  the 
uncontrolled  manner  in  which  the  colony  was  exercising  its 
powers  was  becoming  increasingly  detrimental  to  the  eco- 
nomic welfare  of  England  and  the  Empire. 

In  June  of  1677,  the  Lords  of  Trade  took  Randolph's 
memorial  under  their  careful  consideration.  Before  ventur- 
ing an  opinion  on  the  legal  points  raised  in  it,  *as  these 
matters  were  of  such  high  concern,'  they  sought  the  advice 
of  the  Judges,  and  merely  reported  on  the  question  of  illegal 
trade.*  On  this  point,  they  stated  that  the  guilt  of  the 
Massachusetts  government  had  been  clearly  proven;  and,  to 
prevent  such  practices  in  the  future,  they  proposed  that  the 
King  should  again  instruct  the  colony  to  enforce  these  laws 
and  that  the  Lord  Treasurer  should  appoint  "such  Officers 
of  the  Customs  at  Boston,  and  other  parts  of  New  England, 

1  C.  O.  391/2,  ff.  53,  62;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  102-104;  Toppan,  Ran- 
dolph n,  pp.  268-270,  272-274;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  710. 


MASSACHUSETTS 


271 


as  the  said  Acts  doe  prescribe."  Within  a  few  weeks,  the 
Judges  also  rendered  their  opinion.  While  they  held  that 
Massachusetts  had  no  legal  jurisdiction  over  Maine  and  New 
Hampshire,  they  pronounced  the  colony's  charter  of  1629 
valid  and  that  it  made  '  the  Adventurers  a  corporation  upon 
the  place.'  This  decision  raised  serious  legal  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  those  who  planned  to  abrogate  the  Massa- 
chusetts charter  and  to  establish  in  that  system's  stead 
crown  government  as  in  Barbados  and  Virginia.^ 

On  July  19,  1677,  two  days  after  this  report  of  the 
Judges  was  read,  the  Massachusetts  agents,  Stoughton 
and  Bulkeley,  were  summoned  before  the  Lords  of  Trade 
and  were  questioned  about  the  charges  made  by  Randolph. 
The  agents  stated  that  they  had  no  authority  except  in  the 
Mason  and  Gorges  matter,  but  that  as  private  individuals 
they  would  give  the  desired  information.  Although  putting 
the  facts  in  a  different  setting,  in  general  they  were  unable 
to  refute  Randolph's  accusations.  As  regards  illegal  trade, 
they  said  that  there  were  perhaps  some  private  persons 
who  had  in  ignorance  violated  these  laws,  but  that  the 
Governor  was  obliged  to  take  bonds  to  prevent  such  evasions 
and  would  obey  the  orders  of  the  English  government  in  this 
respect.^  Furthermore,  in  a  written  reply  to  Randolph's  in- 
dictment,^ they  said  that  they  supposed  that  the  trade  laws 
**have  not  beene  strictly  observed  by  some  Merchants  but 

^  This  plan  had  quickly  assumed  definite  shape  in  Randolph's  mind. 
See  his  "Narrative  of  the  State  of  New  England,"  in  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp. 
128,  129. 

2  Toppan,  Randolph  II,  pp.  274-277 ;   C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  123. 

*  C.  O.  1/41,  31;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  124-126. 


i 


» 'ii 


1 


272 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


I 


H 


as  to  the  damage  thereby  accrewing  to  his  Ma*^  we  doe  most 
certainely  know  is  very  inconsiderable  in  comparison  of  what 
is  reported."  In  this  they  were  correct,  as  Randolph  had 
grossly  over-estimated  the  actual  direct  and  indirect  harm 
caused  by  the  Massachusetts  traders.  Since  the  agents  were 
most  anxious  to  prevent  the  appointment  of  royal  customs 
officials  in  the  colony,  they  then  added  that  they  did  not 
doubt  but  that  "vpon  due  consideracon  of  this  Matter  and  a 
right  vnderstanding  of  the  said  Acts  his  Ma*.'  Government  of 
the  Massachusetts  will  readily  apply  themselves  to  attend 
the  duty  incumbent  on  them  in  that  Respect,  Humbly 
hopeing  his  Ma*^  will  be  pleased  first  to  experience  theire 
Managery  before  any  other  be  employed  therein." 

A  week  later,  the  Lords  of  Trade  resumed  their  consid- 
eration of   the  New  England  question  and   discussed  'the 
necessity  of  bringing  those  people  under  a  more  palpable 
declaration  of  their  obedience  to  His  Majesty,  and  that  they 
may  be  of  use  to  him  in  times  of  necessity,  which  hath  hith- 
erto remained  too  long  undecided. '    They  told  the  Massachu- 
setts agents  that  the  colony  must  confine  itself  to  the  territo- 
rial limits  recently  reported  by  the  Judges,  that  they  had 
transgressed  in  coining  money,  that  such  of  their  laws  as 
were  defective  and  contrary  to  those  of  England  had  to  be 
amended  and  repealed,  and  that '  the  Act  of  Navigation  must 
for  the  future  be  religiously  observed.'    Finally,  they  were 
informed  that,  although  their  attendance  in  England  was 
long,  it  was  necessary,  and  although  they  were  not  authorized 
to  act  in  all  these  matters,  'they  were  to  know  that  His 
Majesty  did  not  think  of  treating  with  his  own  subjects  as 


1 


I     I 


MASSACHUSETTS 


273 


with  foreigners  and  to  expect  the  formality  of  powers.'  ^  A 
few  days  later,  the  Lords  of  Trade  again  told  Stoughton  and 
Bulkeley  'that  his  Majesty  would  not  suffer  the  abuse  of 
the  Navigation  Act  to  continue,'  and  that  they  would  re- 
ceive an  officer  of  the  customs  to  see  that  the  laws  were 
fully  obeyed.^ 

These  instructions  were  forwarded  to  Massachusetts,  and 
on  October  10, 1677,  the  General  Court  ordered  the  masters 
of  all  vessels  to  yield  obedience  to  the  trade  laws,  stating, 
however,  that  the  King's  pleasure  in  this  respect  had  not 
"binn  before  now  signified  vnto  us,  either  by  expresse  from 
his  majesty  or  any  his  ministers  of  state." '  This  statement 
was  an  absolute  perversion  of  the  actual  facts.  Orders  to 
this  effect  had  been  sent,  and  in  1663  Massachusetts  had 
taken  measures  for  the  enforcement  of  the  Act  of  Naviga- 
tion. Such  indefensible  prevarications  naturally  sorely  tried 
the  patience  of  the  English  government,  and  ultimately  could 
lead  only  to  the  downfall  of  the  charter  government.  Even 
more  ill-advised  was  the  claim  made  by  the  General  Court 
in  this  connection  shortly  thereafter.^  "Wee  humbly  con- 
ceive," they  said,  "according  to  the  vsuall  sayings  of  the 
learned  in  the  lawe,  that  the  lawes  of  England  are  bounded 
w*4n  the  fower  seas,  and  doe  not  reach  America.  The  sub- 
jects of  his  maj^^'  here  being  not  represented  in  Parljament, 
so  wee  haue  not  looked  at  ourselues  to  be  impeded  in  our 
trade  by  them,  nor  yett  wee  abated  in  our  relative  allegiance 

^  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  135, 136. 

2  Ibid.  p.  141 ;  Toppan,  Randolph  II,  pp.  281-284. 
^  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  V,  p.  155.  *  Ibid.  p.  2C5o. 

^  (2) 


i 


7 


i 


I 


i 


i 

y 
5' 


1' 


I 


274 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


to  his  maj'""."  However,  they  continued,  as  soon  as  the 
King's  pleasure  was  known  that  the  laws  should  be  ob- 
served—  which  could  not  be  done  without  invading  the 
liberty  and  property  of  the  subject  except  by  action  of  the 
General  Court  —  measures  to  this  effect  were  adopted. 
Such  revolutionary  views  were  bound  to  bring  matters  to 
a  crisis.  Without  loss  of  self-respect,  England  could  not 
decline  the  challenge  implied  in  them.^ 

In  the  spring  of  1678,  the  Lords  of  Trade  again  resumed 
consideration  of  the  New  England  situation.  Considerable 
annoyance  was  aroused  by  the  fact  that  Massachusetts  had 
reimposed  the  oath  of  fideHty  to  the  colony.  This  action 
brought  upon  them  a  severe  letter  of  rebuke  from  the  King.^ 

1  On  this  occasion,  the  General  Court  also  stated  that  they  doubted  not 
that  these  restraints  on  their  trade  would  in  time  prove  to  be  "an  abstrac- 
tion of  his  maj^y^^  customes  in  England,"  and  that  it  seemed  hard  that 
they  might  not  ship  the  enumerated  commodities  to  foreign  markets 
after  they  had  paid  the  export  duties  of  1673.  Shortly  before  this,  the 
General  Court  wrote  in  a  similar  strain  to  Stoughton  and  Bulkeley,  stating 
that  their  trade  had  not  lessened  the  EngUsh  customs  revenue,  "as  is  so 
falsely  suggested,"  and  complaining  that,  if  they  shipped  the  enumerated 
goods  via  their  ports  to  England,  they  had  to  pay  both  the  plantation  duties 
of  1673  and  those  imposed  in  England.  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  V,  p.  174.  For 
an  instance  of  a  New  England  vessel  arriving  in  England  from  Boston  with 
tobacco,  sugar,  and  logwood,  see  Cal.  Dom.  1677-1678,  p.  7.  This  volume 
also  records  the  arrival  in  England  of  another  New  England  vessel  with 
tobacco  from  Maryland.    Ibid.  p.  665. 

2  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  247,  248.  On  April  27,  1678,  Charles  II  wrote 
to  Massachusetts  that  the  imposition  of  the  oath  of  fideUty  to  the  colony 
was  very  displeasing  to  him,  "inasmuch  as  the  allegiance  due  to  us,  and  the 
fidelity  to  the  country  are  joyned  together  in  the  same  undecent  forme, 
wherein  such  fidelity  is  made  even  to  precede  your  allegiance  to  us."  Top- 
pan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  i,  2. 


MASSACHUSETTS 


27s 


Nor  had  Massachusetts  remedied  the  other  matters  in  com- 
plaint, except  that  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation  were 
ordered  enforced.  Whatsoever  credit  the  colony  was  en- 
titled to  on  account  of  this  order  was,  however,  more  than 
counterbalanced  by  the  false  statement  that  instructions  to 
obey  these  laws  had  hitherto  not  been  received  from  Eng- 
land. Randolph,  who  was  ever  on  the  alert,  had  brought 
this  serious  misrepresentation  to  the  attention  of  the  Lords 
of  Trade. ^  The  colony's  agents  sought  to  exculpate  their 
principals,  stating  that  the  error  was  due  to  the  hurry  of 
the  General  Court  to  carry  into  eiffect  the  English  govern- 
ment's instructions.^  This,  however,  was  no  excuse  for  so 
gross  a  misstatement,  which  showed  conclusively  what 
scant  attention  had  been  paid  by  Massachusetts  to  the  laws 
of  trade  during  the  preceding  decade.  In  view  of  these 
facts,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  Lords  of  Trade  'very  much 
resented  that  no  more  notice  was  taken  of  those  points 
which  were  so  fairly  and  with  so  much  softness  intimated 
to  the  agents,'  and  reached  the  conclusion  that  nothing  but 
the  appointment  of  a  royal  governor  would  prove  effective.^ 
On  May  16,  1678,  they  advised  the  institution  of  quo  war- 
ranto proceedings  against  the  Massachusetts  charter.*  At 
the  same  time,  the  Lords  of  Trade  were  recommending  the 
appointment  of  Edward  Randolph  as  Collector  of  the  Cus- 
toms in  New  England.^   The  Massachusetts  agents,  however, 

1  Goodrick,  Randolph  VI,  pp.  71-75. 

^  C.  C.  167 7-1680,  pp.  233-236 ;  Toppan,  Randolph  II,  pp.  289-298. 
^  Ibid.  4  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  253. 

^  Ibid.  pp.  229,  230,  253.     In  accordance  with  the  recommendations  of 
the  Lords  of  Trade  during  the  preceding  year,  the  Treasury  wrote  on  July 


1 


i 


it 


'Ii( 


276 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


i 


strenuously  opposed  the  selection  of  Randolph,  both  on  the 
ground  that  he  was  a  "person  of  a  very  indigent  fortune" 
and  so  not  likely  to  be  unbiassed  in  this  employment,  and 
because  his  attacks  on  the  charter  had  made  him  so  "ex- 
treamly  obnoxious''  to  the  colony  that  they  feared  the 
government  of  Massachusetts  would  be  unable  to  guard 
him  from  disrespect.^  The  Customs  reported  that,  in  their 
opinion,  Randolph  might  "be  fitt  for  that  employment," 
but,  since  the  New  England  agents  objected  to  him  as 
"obnoxious  to  the  hatred  of  that  People,"  this  involved  a 
matter  of  state,  which  they  left  to  the  decision  of  the  Lord 
Treasurer.2  As  a  restdt  of  this  opposition,  on  May  6, 1678, 
the  appomtment  of  one  Daniel  Whitfield  was  ordered ;  but 
Randolph  continued  to  urge  his  claims,  and  the  Lord 
Treasurer  then  referred  the  question  to  the  King  for  his 
personal  determination.^  Randolph,  who  had  gathered  his 
impressions  of  colonial  sentiment  from  virtually  exclusive 
association  with  those  dissatisfied  with  the  theocratic  party, 
assured  Charles  II  "that  the  generaHty  of  the  People  there 
were  loyall  and  well  afi^ected  to  his  Government  and  that 
it  would  be  much  to  their  contentment  if  he  were  the  per- 


i 


f  I 


17, 1677,  to  the  Customs  that  there  were  officers  in  all  the  plantations  ex- 
cept "in  the  Colonyes  of  New  England,  which  for  some  weighty  reasons 
hath  been  deferred  until  now :  the  commotions  in  those  parts  being  now 
quieted,  his  Majesty  doth  now  think  fitt  that  officers  should  be  forthwith 
settled  there  as  in  other  the  Plantations,"  and  instructed  them  to  take  up 
this  matter  speedily.     Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  pp.  688,  689. 

^  Goodrick,  Randolph  VI,  pp.  75-80. 

^  Ibid.  pp.  80,  81. 

*  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  pp.  983,  1359. 


MASSACHUSETTS 


277 


son  sent  over;"  and  on  the  strength  of  this  statement,  after 
over  a  year  of  indecision,  he  finally,  in  June  of  1678,  secured 
the  position.^  This  was  a  most  important  step.  For  the 
first  time  in  the  history  of  the  New  England  colonies  there 
was  permanently  established  in  their  midst  an  official  who 
was  not  responsible  to  them.^  It  was  all  but  a  half  century 
after  the  foundation  of  Massachusetts  before  the  imperial 
government  was  represented  by  an  official  resident  in  the 

colony. 

In  contradistinction  to  the  practice  in  the  other  colonies, 
whose  collectors  retained  as  their  remuneration  varying  por- 
tions of  the  duties  received  by  them,  Randolph's  salary  of 
£100  was  inserted  in  the  English  establishment.^  He  was 
instructed  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  to  enforce 
within  his  jurisdiction,  which  included  also  the  other  New 

iP.  C.  Cal.  I,  p.  782;  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  pp.  1023,  1386. 
On  November  16,  1677,  Danby  had  instructed  the  Customs  Board  to  select 
some  one  for  this  post  so  "that  I  may  present  a  fit  officer  to  his  Majesty 
in  case  of  objection  against  Mr.  Randolph,  as  obnoxious  to  the  hatred 
of  the  people."  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  p.  784-  At  this  time.  Sir 
Edmund  Andros  wrote  of  Massachusetts :  "  I  doe  not  find  but  the  generality 
of  the  Magistrates,  &  people  are  well  affected  to  y?  King  and  Kingdome, 
but  most  knowing  noe  other  Govemm^  then  their  owne,  think  it  best,  and 
are  wedded  to  &  oppiniatre  for  it."  C.  O.  1/42,  52 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill, 
pp.  262-264. 

2C/.  C.  O.  1/45,  74;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  587,  588. 

3  His  salary  was  to  commence  from  September  10,  1676,  the  date  of  his 
return  from  New  England.  Toppan,  Randolph  III,  p.  41 ;  P-  C.  Cal.  I, 
pp.  844,  845 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  378 ;  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  p. 
1 142.  No  provision  was  made  for  Randolph's  expenses  in  hiring  clerks, 
etc.,  but  the  Customs  Board  was  authorized  to  make  such  allowances  as 
they  "should  see  reason  of  the  same."  Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Cus- 
toms 5,  f-  93- 


Pl 


278 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


V''\ 


» 


I    • 


1 


I- 


i 


i 


A. 


England  colonies,  all  the  Acts  of  Trade  and  Navigation,  as 
well  as  the  Statute  of  Frauds  in  the  Customs  of  1662  ^  whose 
force  in  the  colonies  was  of  questionable  legality.  Randolph 
was  to  reside  in  Boston  and  was  authorized  to  appoint  dep- 
uties for  the  other  colonies.^  In  addition,  special  commis- 
sions were  issued  to  Randolph  and  others  to  administer  to 
the  separate  Governors  in  the  four  New  England  colonies 
the  oaths  to  obey  the  laws  of  trade.^ 

Further  action  by  the  EngUsh  government  was  delayed  by 
the  frenzied  excitement  arising  from  the  alleged  Popish 
Plot,  and  it  was  only  in  the  fall  of  1679  that  Randolph  left 
England  to  assume  his  post.     In  the  meanwhile,  much  to 
the  annoyance  of  the  English  government,  the  Massachusetts 
agents  had  bought  the  claims  of  the  Gorges  heirs  and,  al- 
though this  purchase  did  not  carry  with  it  the  legal  right  to 
govern  Maine,  it  disposed  of  one  of  the  colony's  important 
opponents.    Mason,  to  whom  similar  overtures  had  been 
made,^  refused  to  sell  his  interests  in  New  Hampshire;  but 
as  the  EngHsh  legal  authorities  held  that  these  did  not  in- 
clude the  right  to  govern  this  territory,  and  as  Massachusetts 
had  no  vaHd  authority  for  exercising  jurisdiction  there,  it 
was  decided  to  establish  crown  government.^     The  Mas- 
sachusetts agents,  who  were  impatiently  fretting  at  their 
prolonged  stay  in  England,  were  also  finally  permitted  to 
return  home.^    Randolph  carried  with  him  commissions 

1  13  &  14  Ch.  II,  c.  xi.  2  Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  19-30. 

'  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  289,  290.      *  Ibid.  p.  224. 

^  Ibid.  pp.  362,  384,  390,  391 ;  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  851-856. 

•  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  786,  787 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  361,  362. 


MASSACHUSETTS 


279 


for  the  erection  of  the  new  government  in  New  Hampshire; 
letters  from  the  Lords  of  Trade  to  the  Governors  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, New  Plymouth,  Connecticut,  and  Rhode  Island; 
commissions  to  administer  to  these  officials  the  statutory 
oaths  to  obey  the  laws  of  trade;  and  also  a  letter  from  the 
King  to  the  Governor  and  Company  of  Massachusetts.^ 

In  this  letter,  which  was  carefully  prepared  by  the  Lords  of 
Trade,2  Charles  II  stated  that  he  had  consented  to  the  return 
of  Stoughton  and  Bulkeley  to  Massachusetts,  as  the  Privy 
Council's  time  was  so  taken  up  with  the  Popish  Plot  that 
"there  appeares  little  prospect  of  any  speedy  leasure  for 
entring  upon  Regulations  in  your  affaires  as  is  certainly  nec- 
essary, not  only  in  respect  of  Our  Dignity,  but  of  your  own 
perfect  Settlement."  In  order  to  arrange  such  a  settle- 
ment, he  commanded  them  to  send  "other  fit  person  or 
persons  clearly  instructed"  within  six  months  after  the 
receipt  of  this  letter.  After  expressing  satisfaction  at  their 
taking  the  oath  of  allegiance  the  preceding  year,^  Charles 
II  stated  his  surprise  at  their  attitude  toward  such  Protes- 
tants as  did  not  belong  to  the  Congregational  Church,  since 
"Liberty  of  Conscience  was  made  one  principall  motive  for 
your  first  Transplantation  into  those  parts,"  and  instructed 
them  to  extend  the  suffrage  to  all  other  than  Papists  and 
also  to  make  such  persons  eligible  to  public  office.  In 
addition,  all  military  commissions,  as  well  as  all  judicial 
proceedings,  were  to  be  in  the  King's  name.    Gratification 

1  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  421 ;  Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1676-1679,  p.  1089. 
*  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  361,  362,  366,  377. 
'  See  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  V,  p.  193. 


1V 


280 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


i'-l 


■^ 


i  t 


M 


I 


was  then  expressed  at  the  provision  made  by  them  for  en- 
forcing the  laws  of  trade,  and  they  were  ordered  to  repeal 
aU  local  acts  repugnant  to  them  and  to  assist  Randolph  in 
his  work.  The  King  then  took  them  to  task  for  their  pre- 
sumption in  buying  Maine  and  ordered  them  to  surrender  the 
title-deed  to  him  on  receipt  of  the  purchase-money  paid,  — 
£1250.  FinaUy,  the  letter  commanded  them  to  cease  exer- 
cismg  any  jurisdiction  in  New  Hampshire,  since  the  King 
intended  to  provide  for  its  government.^ 

In  the  meanwhile  the  extremists  in  Massachusetts  had 
been  deposed  from  office  and,  in  place  of  the  intransigent 
Leverett,  a  moderate,  Bradstreet,  had  been  elected  Governor. 
Some  attention  was  now  paid  to  the  royal  orders.  Mili- 
tary commissions  were  issued  in  the  King's  name,  and  the 
exercise  of  authority  in  New  Hampshire  was  discontinued. 
But  Maine  was  not  surrendered  to  the  King,  the  laws  re- 
pugnant to  those  of  England  were  not  repealed,  the  disabili- 
ties of  reHgious  dissenters  were  not  removed,  and  agents  to 
represent  the  colony  in  England  were  not  appointed.^  More- 
over, illegal  trading  still  continued,  as  the  reports  of  Ran- 
dolph during  the  year  1680  abundantly  proved. 

The  selection  of  Randolph  as  the  first  imperial  customs 
official  in  New  England  was  far  from  a  wise  one.  On  the 
score  of  ability  and  energy  there  can  be  no  question  of  his 
fitness,  except  in  so  far  as  his  legal  training  occasionally 
led  him  to  insist  upon  a  meticulous  obedience  to  the  law, 

^  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  840-844;  Hutchinson  Papers  11,  p.  260;  C.  C.  1677- 
1680,  pp.  377,  378. 

2  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  536,  549. 


MASSACHUSETTS 


281 


when  a  broader  and  less  technical  interpretation  of  its 
spirit  would  have  injured  no  one  and  would  have  obviated 
considerable  friction.  But  Randolph  had  been  the  main 
source  whence  the  English  government  during  the  preced- 
ing three  years  had  derived  the  data  for  its  charges  against 
Massachusetts,  and  it  was  well  known  that  he  had  advocated 
the  abrogation  of  the  colony's  charter.^  Hence  it  was  only 
natural  that  he  was  extremely  unpopular  in  Massachusetts. 
On  January  29, 1680,  shortly  after  his  advent  from  England, 
he  wrote :  "I  am  received  at  Boston  more  like  a  spy,  than 
one  of  his  majesty's  servants."  ^  To  greet  him  were  pre- 
pared some  doggerel  verses,  in  which  it  was  lamented  that, 
if  Caesar  would  have  his  due,  it  should  be  by  such  a  "wicked 
Hand"  as  Randolph's.  Some  of  the  difficulties  to  be  en- 
countered by  him  were  foreshadowed  by  the  Hnes : 

"  Wee  veryly  belieue  wee  are  not  bound 
To  pay  one  Mite  to  you,  much  less  a  Pound."  ' 

Randolph  remained  at  his  post  for  somewhat  over  a  year 
and  sent  detailed  reports  of  his  experiences  to  the  English 
government.  Shortly  after  his  arrival  he  wrote  that,  in 
spite  of  the  protestations  of  the  agents,  the  Bostoners  were 
'acting  as  high  as  ever,'  the  merchants  trading  as  freely, 
and  that  no  seizure  had  been  made  for  illegal  trade  since 

1  A  copy  of  Randolph's  "  Narrative  of  the  State  of  New  England,"  in 
which  he  urged  the  government  to  appoint  a  general  governor  for  these 
colonies,  had  been  given  to  the  Massachusetts  agents  by  Mason,  who  had 
assisted  in  drawing  up  the  memorial.  Stoughton  and  Bulkeley  in  turn  sent 
the  document  to  Massachusetts.    Ibid.  pp.  128,  129,  229. 

2  Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  64-66. 

3  Ibid.  Ill,  pp.  61-64. 


u 


■    I 


I  1] 


'i' 


Ji 


i 


I  '    r 


'Ill 


II 


r 


«'!« 


i 


^1^ 


282 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


their  law  of  1677.  It  is  in  every  man's  mouth,  he  added, 
that  they  are  not  subject  to  the  laws  of  England,  nor  are 
they  of  any  force  in  Massachusetts  until  confirmed  by 
them.^  The  merchants  insisted  that,  after  payment  of  the 
plantation  duties  of  1673,  they  could  export  tobacco  directly 
to  foreign  markets.^  There  was  no  sound  legal  basis  for  this 
contention,  and  the  English  government's  insistence  that 
even  after  payment  of  these  export  duties  the  enumerated 
goods  had  still  to  be  shipped  to  England  was  one  of  the  two 
chief  complaints  of  the  colony  against  the  laws  of  trade. 
The  other  arose  from  the  Staple  Act  of  1663,  which  obliged 
Massachusetts  vessels  taking  fish  to  the  Mediterranean 
countries  to  return  home  via  England,  provided  they  loaded 
there  any  commodities  other  than  salt.^  Randolph  reported 
that  vessels  outward  bound  from  Massachusetts  did  not 
clear  with  any  officials  or  give  the  enumerated  bonds,  and 
that  it  was  necessary  to  have  added  to  his  instructions  a 
clause  obliging  all  vessels  to  enter  and  clear  with  him."* 
In  his  efforts  to  enforce  the  law,  Randolph  encoimtered 

^  Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  56-61 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  487-490. 

2  Ibid. 

3  In  1678,  the  Massachusetts  agents,  Stoughton  and  Bulkeley,  pointed 
out  that  these  were  the  two  chief  obstructions  to  trade.  C.  C.  167 7-1 680, 
pp.  269,  270. 

*  Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  66-68,  70-73 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  544, 
545.  In  1678,  however.  Governor  Andros  of  New  York  stated  regarding 
New  England  that  "the  acts  of  trade  &  Navigacon  are  Sayd  &  is  generally 
beUeved  not  to  be  observed  in  the  Collonyes  as  they  ought,  there  being  noe 
Custome  houses,  but  the  govemo'"  of  the  Massachusetts  giues  Clearings 
Certificates  &  passes  for  euery  pticuler  thing  from  thence  to  New  Yorke." 
C.  O.  1/42,  52 ;  Toppan,  Randolph  II,  pp.  301-305 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill, 
pp.  262-264. 


H 


MASSACHUSETTS 


283 


obstruction  from  aU  sides  —  from  the  government,  courts, 
and  the  people.  Pubhc  sentiment  was  hostile  to  him,  since 
he  was  looked  upon  as  the  country's  inveterate  enemy;  ^  and 
this  hostility  aggravated  the  difficulties  which  even  under 
the  most  favorable  circumstances  were  inherent  in  the  task 
entrusted  to  him.  During  the  year  1680,  Randolph  made 
a  number  of  seizures  of  ships  and  goods.  Some  were  of 
vessels  that  had  imported  goods  directly  from  Ireland  and 
Spain ;  others  arose  from  the  illegal  exportation  of  tobacco 
to  foreign  markets.^  On  trial  of  virtually  all  these  cases, 
Randolph  was  defeated,  as  under  no  circumstances  would 
the  juries  bring  in  verdicts  in  his  favor.  During  the  trial 
of  the  Expectation,  a  Boston  vessel  that  had  imported 
directly  from  Ireland  a  small  quantity  of  various  European 
goods,  it  was  urged  that  "some  of  y^  lawes  of  trade  did  not 
relate  to  their  Country,  that  they  have  not  been  sufficiently 
published,  and  that  it  is  very  hard  a  vessel  should  be  lost 
upon  such  niceties  besides  that  the  Comm"  of  the  Customs 
have  noe  power  to  depute  an  Officer  to  act  in  their  Country." 
In  some  instances,  Randolph  had  to  deposit  £10  to  defray 
the  court's  expenses  so  as  to  secure  the  trial  of  the  case  and, 

1  In  1680,  Governor  Bradstreet  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade:  "It  is 
true  that  the  people  here  shew  him  [Randolph]  lyttle  respect,  or  good 
affeccon:  because  they  generally  looke  att  him  as  one  that  beares  noe  good 
will  to  the  Country:  but  Sought  the  ruin  of  it,  by  being  a  meanes  and 
instrum^  highly  to  incense  his  Ma"^  and  /  Hon"  against  this  poore  place, 
and  people,  for  which  they  are  deepely  senseable  and  sorrowfull."  C.  O. 
1/44,  61. 

2  C.  O.  1/45,  10;  C.  O.  1/46,  nos.  I,  72;  Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp. 
70-76,  84-86;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  544,  545,  547,  548,  591,  592,  640;  C.  C. 
1681-1685,  PP-  19,  20. 


I 


M 


y 


t 


^■i 


r 


iii 


I'i!' 


1'  I 


f 


H 


284 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


after  losing  it,  costs  were  charged  against  him.  In  the  case 
of  the  ship  Expectation,  he  was  even  sued  by  the  master 
for  £800  damages.  Moreover,  Randolph  was  not  allowed 
by  the  Massachusetts  court  to  appeal  from  its  decisions  to 
England.  Other  obstacles  were  also  put  in  his  way.  The 
authority  derived  by  him  from  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Customs  was  not  recognized,  seizures  were  prevented  by 
violence,  and  goods  seized  were  forcibly  taken  from  him ; 
his  deputies  were  not  recognized,  and  the  one  appointed  at 
Charlestown  was  warned  out  of  doors  by  some  of  the  towns- 
men. 

The  general  effect  of  these  actions  was  to  nullify  the  laws 
of  trade  in  Massachusetts.    Although  the  Deputy-Governor, 
Thomas  Danforth,  who  belonged  to  the  extreme  party, 
was  most  conspicuous  in  denying  Randolph's  authority, 
Governor  Bradstreet,  who  probably  foresaw  the  inevitable 
result  of  such  obstruction,  cooperated  with  Randolph  and 
ordered  the  marshals  and  constables  to  assist  him.^    But  his 
aid  was  of  no  avail  in  the  face  of  the  popular  hostility  to 
this  extension  of  the  imperial  power.     The  open  flouting  of 
Randolph's   authority   and   the   contempt   and   disrespect 
manifested  towards  him  demonstrated  anew  that  the  Mas- 
sachusetts system  of  government  required  remodelling,  un- 
less England  were  willing  to  abandon  the  policy  embodied 
in  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation.    But  such  a  step  the 
statesmen  of  the  day  never  for  a  single  moment  contem- 
plated. 


^  C.  O.  1/4S,  10  i.    See  also  C.  O.  1/44,  61 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  528- 


530. 


MASSACHUSETTS 


285 


Randolph's  statements  about  illegal  trade  in  New  England 
were  confirmed  by  Robert  Holden,  who  had  stopped  at 
Boston  when  on  his  way  to  assume  his  duties  as  Collector 
of  the  Customs  at  Albemarle  in  Carolina.  In  1679,  he 
wrote  from  Boston  to  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs 
that  about  six  traders  of  that  city  received  the  bulk  of  the 
Albemarle  crop  of  tobacco  and  shipped  it  to  Ireland,  Hol- 
land, France,  and  Spain,  "under  the  notion  of  Fish  and 
such  goods."  Canary  wines,  he  said,  were  imported  under 
the  name  of  Madeira,  and  "the  Scotch  Trade  by  the  like 
Leger  de  main  jugles  is  driven."  According  to  him,  ships 
cleared  from  an  English  port  with  a  small  quantity  of  goods, 
and  then  proceeded  to  Scotland,  whence  they  carried  to 
Boston  linens  and  other  articles,  which  they  entered  on  the 
strength  of  their  English  clearances.  In  addition,  on  the 
pretence  that  they  were  salt,  linens,  wines,  and  silks  were 
imported  directly  from  France,  and  also  wines,  fruits,  and 
oils  from  Spain  and  Portugal.^ 

The  statements  of  Randolph  as  to  the  extent  of  this  ille- 
gal trade  were  traversed  by  Governor  Bradstreet.  In  answer 
to  Randolph's  exaggerated  assertion,  made  in  1677,  that 
this  irregular  trading  cost  the  English  customs  revenue 
£100,000  yearly,^  he  wrote  on  May  18,  1680,^  to  the  Lords 
of  Trade  that  upon  the  strictest  inquiry  he  finds  "there  hath 
neuer  bene  £5000  irregularly  traded  by  the  merchants  of 

*  C.  0. 1/43,  71 ;  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I,  pp.  244-246;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp. 
372,  373- 

2  Toppan,  Randolph  II,  pp.  265-268 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  79. 
8  C.  O.  1/44,  61 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  528-530. 


ji«'  ! 


fl 


11,1 

I' 


IJ' 


II 


286 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


this  place  in  one  year."    He  admitted  that  now  and  then  a 
vessel  might  steal  away  from  the  colony  with  tobacco  to 
HoUand  or  France,  which  could  not  be  prevented  even  with 
the  greatest  care  and  diligence,  but  he  asserted  that  the 
damage  to  the  English  customs  revenue  was  unimportant. 
It  reaUy  amounted,  he  said,  only  to  the  slight  duties  that 
should  have  been  paid  in  England  on  such  goods  as  were 
imported  by  these  ships  in  violation  of  the  law  directly  from 
these  foreign  countries  into  Massachusetts.    For  the  tobacco 
iUegaUy  exported  from  the  colony,  he  pointed  out,  had 
already  paid  the  1673  export  duties  in  the  place  of  produc- 
tion.   Besides,  he  said,  if  they  carried  these  enumerated 
goods  to  England,  "which  generaUy  is  done,"  then  they  had 
to  pay  the  customs  again  there.    Bradstreet  finaUy  stated 
that   their  merchants  complained  of  thus  having  to  pay 
double  duties,  and  that  this  tempted  them  to  ship  these 
goods  from  Massachusetts  elsewhere  than  to  England.     In 
this  defence  of  the  colony  the  Governor,  however,  faUed  to 
take  account  of  the  actions  of  the  New  England  traders  in 
supplying  the  other  colonies  with  illegally  imported  Euro- 
pean goods  and  in  taking  the  enumerated  products  directly 
from  them  to  European  markets.     The  inclusion  of  this 
indirect  loss  in  Randolph's  statement  and  its  omission  in 
Bradstreet's  to  some  extent  accounted  for  the  discrepancy 
between  them,  but  still  left  a  very  wide  margin  of  difference. 
From  these  statements  of  Randolph,  Holden,  and  Brad- 
street,  as  well  as  from  other  avaUable  evidence,  it   is 
plainly  apparent  that  there  was  considerable  evasion  of 
the  laws  m  Massachusetts,  especially  in  the  direct  shipment 


i 


^f- 


MASSACHUSETTS 


287 


of  tobacco  to  foreign  markets.  The  amount  thus  illegally 
exported  from  the  colony  cannot,  however,  be  determined 
with  any  precision.  But  it  was  unquestionably  only  a  most 
insignificant  fraction  of  the  total  tobacco  exports  from  all 
the  colonies.  Furthermore,  the  New  England  ships,  that 
took  fish  and  lumber  to  southern  Europe,  brought  back  from 
these  coimtries  some  commodities,  mainly  wines,  oils,  and 
fruits.^  Wine  was  also  imported  from  the  Canary  Islands, 
but  there  was  some  legitimate  doubt  about  the  alleged  ille- 
gality of  this  practice.^  These  were  the  two  chief  branches 
of  illegal  trade  in  Massachusetts,  but  in  addition  European 
goods  and  manufactures  were  occasionally  imported  directly 
from  Ireland,  Scotland,  France,  and  Holland.  In  one  of 
his  despatches  of  1680,  Randolph  mentioned  that  several 
ships  had  arrived  from  France,  Holland,  and  Spain,  and 

^  In  1678,  the  Massachusetts  agents  said  that  the  imports  were  EngKsh 
commodities  and  those  of  Europe,  such  as  salt,  oil,  wines,  fruits,  spices,  and 
iron.     C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  269,  270. 

2  On  this  legal  point,  see  ante,  Vol.  I,  pp.  78,  79.  Some  attention  was, 
however,  paid  to  the  forms  of  the  law,  for  Canary  and  Spanish  wines  were 
usually  imported  as  the  product  of  the  Madeiras.  Regarding  one  of  his 
seizures,  Randolph  wrote:  "He  went  to  the  Gou^'n''^  house  and  he  saw 
the  entry  of  John  Place  in  the  Gouerno'^  Booke  of  Entry^  in  these  words 
viz^  The  ship  Hope  of  Boston  John  Place  master  arrived  from  maderar^ 
(the  Madeiras)  i6th  laden  wyth  thirty  pipes  of  Marmasee  which  the  Gouemo' 
was  pleased  to  tell  me  was  made  by  said  Place  (i.e.  the  Madeiras)  some  time 
after  dinner."  Goodrick,  Randolph  VI,  pp.  112,  113.  We  are  indebted 
to  the  efficient  editor  of  the  final  volumes  of  these  Randolph  papers  for  a 
curiously  humorous  misinterpretation  of  this  document.  In  his  introduc- 
tion, Goodrick  writes:  "But  the  effrontery  of  the  violators  of  the  Acts  of 
Trade  clearly  appears  from  the  case  of  the  ship  Hope  the  master  of  which 
claimed  to  have  manufactured  thirty  pipes  Malmsey  himself,  a  statement 
which  was  corroborated  by  the  Governor  'after  dinner.*  "    Ibid.  p.  5. 


1 


'\i 


ii 


I 


f ' 


/ 


288 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


that  three  or  four  more  were  expected.^  Apparently,  how- 
ever, this  trade  was  not  large.  Massachusetts  had  devel- 
oped a  number  of  household  industries,  making  linens, 
woollens,  shoes,  hats,  and  other  goods,  which  curtailed  the 
demand  for  European  manufactures.^  Hence,  in  proportion 
to  its  population,  it  did  not  furnish  by  any  means  so  large  a 
market  for  European  goods  as  did  the  plantation  colonies. 
Its  imports  from  England  were  estimated  by  Governor 
Bradstreet  at  from  £40,000  to  £50,000  yearly,^  and  appar- 
ently this  comprised  the  larger  portion  of  the  manufactures 
imported.  In  1678,  Governor  Andros  of  New  York  stated 
that  Massachusetts  imported  "all  manner  of  European  goods 
of  all  Sorts,  Chiefly  woollen  &  other  English  manufactures, 
&  linings."  ^ 

The  violations  of  the  laws  as  a  whole  were,  however,  so 
extensive  in  Massachusetts,  that  any  attempt  to  stop  them 
would  naturally  arouse  considerable  opposition.  But  it  was 
not  solely,  or  even  primarily,  such  objections  to  England's 

*  Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  70-73  ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  544,  545. 
2  C.  O.  1/44,  61  i;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  528-530. 

8  lUd. 

*  C.  O.  1/42,  52;  Toppan,  Randolph  II,  pp.  301-315;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc. 
Ill,  pp.  262-264.  According  to  Governor  Cranfield  of  New  Hampshire, 
the  importations  of  foreign  goods  were  more  extensive  than  is  indicated 
by  the  other  evidence.  In  1683,  he  wrote  to  Blathwayt  that  the  trade  of 
Boston  "is  chiefly  of  ffrench  and  Holland  goods,  which  are  imported  in 
such  quantitys  and  sold  so  much  cheap^  then  those  brought  from  England 
that  of  y^  Cargo  I  brought  with  me,  I  haue  scarsely  sold  sufficient  to  defray 
my  expenses."  It  would  be  impossible,  he  added,  to  prevent  this  irregular 
trade  without  a  frigate  or  two  upon  the  coast,  as  the  prohibited  goods  were 
transferred  at  sea  into  sloops  and  so  landed.  Goodrick,  Randolph  VI,  pp. 
143-145. 


MASSACHUSETTS 


289 


economic  policy  that  created  the  difficulties  which  beset 
Randolph's  path.  It  was  not  so  much  the  customs  official 
that  was  hated  and  feared,  as  the  representative  of  the  home 
government.  For  the  first  time  in  the  colony's  brief  life 
of  fifty  years  were  its  people  brought  into  direct  contact 
with  an  official  not  created  by  and  directly  responsible  to 
them.  It  was  a  distinct  diminution  of  the  complete  self- 
government  hitherto  enjoyed,  and  no  one  in  the  colony  could 
foresee  how  far  this  entering  wedge  might  penetrate.  Un- 
questionably, many  in  the  colony  regarded  it  as  the  pre- 
liminary step  to  the  revocation  of  their  charter.  Such  was 
the  aim  of  some  in  England,  but  the  government  acted  with 
characteristic  patience  and  dehberation.  The  reports  re- 
ceived from  Randolph,  and  the  neglect  of  the  Massachusetts 
government  to  comply  with  its  instructions  of  1679,  however, 
demanded  some  immediate  action.  On  September  15,  1680, 
the  Lords  of  Trade  reported  on  Massachusetts' s  failure  to 
send  agents,  to  remove  the  disabilities  from  Anglicans  and 
other  non-congregational  Protestants,  to  repeal  such  of  their 
laws  as  were  repugnant  to  those  of  England,  to  obey  the 
laws  of  trade,  and  offered  the  draft  of  a  letter  to  be  sent  in 
the  King's  name  to  the  colony.  This  draft  was  approved, 
and  the  letter  was  sent.  Therein  the  colony  was  firmly, 
though  gently,  taken  to  task  for  its  neglect  and  was  ordered 
to  observe  the  royal  commands  and  to  send  over  agents 
within  three  months  of  its  receipt,  "in  default  whereof 
wee  shall  take  the  most  effectual  means"  to  procure 
satisfaction.^ 

1  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  598,  599;  P.  C.  Cal.  II,  pp.  8-11. 
u  (2) 


I 

1 


\ 


'.IN 


i!i; 


^'1 


lit  I 


*f 


« 


290 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


This  should  have  been  ample  warning  and  should  have 
brought  Massachusetts  to  a  full  realization  of  the  gravity 
of  the  situation  and  of  the  necessity  of  meeting  the  English 
government  at  least  halfway.  But  the  colony  remained 
obdurate  and  delayed  compliance  with  the  royal  com- 
mands. It  was  only  in  June  of  1681  that  the  Secretary  of 
Massachusetts  wrote  to  Sir  Leoline  Jenkins,  acknowledging 
receipt  of  the  King's  letter  of  the  preceding  September,  and 
seeking  to  excuse  the  colony's  neglect  to  send  agents  to  Eng- 
land, on  the  ground  that  no  one  in  any  degree  qualified  could 
be  prevailed  upon  to  accept  this  task.^  The  position  was 
indeed  far  from  an  enviable  one,  as  it  was  impossible  so  to 
act  as  to  give  satisfaction  both  to  the  EngHsh  government 
and  to  the  colony.  ^  Yet  the  conclusion  is  irresistible  that 
Massachusetts's  excuses  were  not  wholly  sincere,  and  that, 
had  the  colony  been  willing  to  discuss  the  questions  at  issue, 
suitable  agents  would  have  been  found.  The  failure  to  do 
so  naturally  prejudiced  its  case  in  England. 

In  the  spring  of  168 1,  Randolph  had  returned  to  England, 
full  of  his  grievances  against  the  colony.  On  some  of  the 
moot  points  raised  by  his  experiences  in  Massachusetts, 
he  consulted  the  English  legal  authorities.  In  reply  to  his 
chief  questions,  the  Attorney-General  stated  that  the  laws 
of  trade  and  navigation  were  in  efifect  in  Massachusetts 
without  any  notification  whatsoever,  and  that  an  appeal 
could  be  taken  from  the  decisions  of  the  colonial  courts  to 

>  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  65,  66. 

2  See  Cotton  Mather's  statement,  quoted  in  Kimball's  Joseph  Dudley, 
P-  13. 


MASSACHUSETTS 


291 


the  King  in  Council.^  Accordingly,  by  Order  in  Council  an 
appeal  was  allowed  in  a  number  of  cases  arising  out  of  the 
seizure  of  ships  or  goods,  in  which  Randolph  claimed  that  he 
had  been  unjustly  treated  by  the  colonial  courts.^  Randolph 
also  explained  the  difl&culties  that  he  had  encountered  to 
the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs,  who  fully  supported  him 
in  a  lengthy  report.'  In  especial,  they  commented  adversely 
upon  the  fact  that  no  law  was  considered  to  be  binding  by 
Massachusetts  unless  it  had  been  proclaimed  by  beat  of 
drum  and  other  formalities,  and  that,  as  these  proceedings 
had  been  omitted  in  connection  with  the  order  of  the  General 
Court  of  1677  enjoining  the  execution  of  the  laws  of  trade, 
their  validity  was  questioned  in  the  colony. 

In  addition  to  this  activity,  which  directly  concerned  his 
office,  Randolph  overstepped  its  immediate  limits  and 
strongly  advised  the  government  to  institute  proceedings 

1  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  36,  37 ;  Brit.  Mus.,  Egerton  MSS.  2395,  fif.  595,  596. 
The  Attorney- General  also  answered  the  other  questions  asked  by  Randolph. 
To  the  question,  how  should  juries  be  treated  who  brought  in  verdicts  against 
the  law  and  the  facts,  he  replied 'that  a  new  trial  should  be  ordered  by  the 
local  courts.  He  pronounced  illegal  the  order  of  the  Massachusetts  court 
requiring  Randolph  to  pay  £10  for  calling  a  special  court  for  trying  his 
seizures.  Furthermore,  he  held  that  one-half  of  the  fines  and  forfeitures  for 
breaches  of  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation  belonged  to  the  Crown  and  that 
Massachusetts  was  not  entitled  to  the  entire  amount.  C.  C.  1681-1685, 
pp.  59,  60. 

2  P.  C.  Cal  I,  pp.  22,  23.  Cf.  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  77;  Goodrick,  Ran- 
dolph VI,  pp.  84-86. 

'  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  103-105;  Goodrick,  Randolph  VT,  pp.  99-112. 
The  Commissioners  also  reported  on  Randolph's  statement  that  the  illegal 
trade  to  Massachusetts  had  been  facilitated  by  the  corruption  of  officials  at 
Carlisle  and  Minehead,  who  had  given  false  certificates ;  and  stated  that  the 
guilty  official  at  the  latter  port  had  been  dismissed. 


If 


If 


1    1 


II 

i 


i  r< 


ii  i 


292 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


for  the  abrogation  of  the  Massachusetts  charter.  There 
was  no  danger  of  rebellion,  he  said,  nor  of  their  joining  the 
French,  for  'they  have  such  a  pique  against  them  that  they 
only  want  an  opportunity  to  dispossess  them  in  Nova  Scotia, 
Canada  and  Newfoundland/  Furthermore,  he  somewhat 
hesitatingly  suggested  the  uniting  of  the  five  separate  New 
England  colonies  under  one  general  governor.  Such  a 
united  government,  he  claimed,  would  gain  greatly  in  mili- 
tary strength,  and  besides  it  would  facilitate  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  laws  of  trade  in  the  other  colonies,  'when  they 
see  New  England  subjected  to  them  as  well  as  themselves.' 
No  one,  according  to  him,  was  better  qualified  for  this 
position  than  Lord  Culpeper,  the  Governor  of  Virginia.^ 
In  his  turn.  Lord  Culpeper  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade 
confirming  in  general  Randolph's  charges  against  Massa- 
chusetts.^ 

In  the  fall  of  1681,  Randolph  was  ready  to  return  to  his 
post.  His  authority  had  in  the  meanwhile  been  strengthened 
by  the  issue  of  a  new  commission  directly  from  the  Crown 
in  the  form  of  letters  patent,^  and  in  addition  William  Blath- 
wayt,  the  Auditor-General  of  the  colonial  revenues,  had 
appointed  him  his  deputy  in  New  England.*    Although  the 

1  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  31,  32,  34-36;  Goodrick,  Randolph  VI,  pp.  89-94. 

2  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  99,  100. 
'  October  15,  33  Charles  IL 

*  His  duties  as  deputy-auditor  did  not,  however,  extend  to  New  Hamp- 
shire. Blathwayt,  Journal  I,  f.  8S.  In  this  connection,  Joseph  Dudley 
wrote  on  Feb.  9,  1682,  to  the  Secretary  of  Connecticut  that  Randolph 
"hath  besides  a  power  to  govern  your  trade,  an  order  to  examine  your 
Treasury  &  make  you  vomit  up  all  deodands,  escheats,  felon's  goods  & 
fines  upon  penall  lawes."   Conn.  Col.  Rec.  II,  p.  312. 


'I 


Ii 


MASSACHUSETTS 


293 


latter  position  gave  him  no  additional  powers  in  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  laws  of  trade,  it  conferred  upon  him  jurisdiction 
over  the  royalties  reserved  to  the  Crown  and  also  over  the 
Crown's  share  of  the  fines  and  forfeitures  for  violations  of 
these  laws.  Politically,  it  marked  one  further  step  in  the 
extension  of  the  imperial  government's  control  over  these 

colonies. 

At  the  same  time  also,  on  October  21,  1681,  the  King 
wrote  to  the  Massachusetts  authorities,  sternly  rebuking 
them  for  their  conduct  towards  Randolph,  and  commanding 
them  to  'give  all  coimtenance  and  encouragement  to  him,' 
to  restore  the  money  paid  for  the  holding  of  special  courts, 
to  give  an  account  of  one-half  of  the  fines  for  breaches  of 
the  laws  of  trade  which  belonged  to  the  Crown,  and  to  ad- 
mit appeals  to  England  in  all  cases  affecting  the  revenue. 
The  purely  political  questions  in  dispute  were  purposely  not 
mentioned  in  view  of  Massachusetts's  expressed  intention 
to  send  agents  for  their  discussion,  but  the  colony's  hollow 
excuses  for  not  sending  them  earlier  were  exposed  by  the 
remark,  that  'we  cannot  doubt  but  there  are  many  of  our 
subjects,  fitly  qualified  for  the  same,  who  would  be  willing 
to  attend  us  here  were  they  fully  instructed  and  authorised 
by  you.'  ^ 

On  receipt  of  this  letter,  it  was  finally  recognized  in  the 
colony  that  further  attempts  to  protract  matters  were  out 
of  the  question,  and  early  in  1682  Joseph  Dudley  and  John 
Richards  were  appointed  to  act  as  its  agents.  Carefully 
prepared  instructions  were  drawn  up  to  govern  their  actions 

1  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  128, 129  J  Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  iia-113. 


ii\ 


I' 

j 


I* 


294 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


in  England.*  They  were  to  beg  pardon  for  having  coined 
money,  but  were  to  point  out  that  this  had  been  done  only  as 
a  result  of  the  need  of  currency.  ^  Then  they  were  to  repre- 
sent that  members  of  the  Church  of  England  had  the  same 
liberty  as  all  others,  and  that  provision  had  been  made  for 
the  enforcement  of  the  laws  of  trade.  While  they  were  to 
promise  full  support  to  Randolph  in  the  execution  of  these 
laws  ^  and  to  deny  any  claim  to  the  Crown's  moiety  of  for- 
feitures for  their  violation,  they  were  ordered  to  represent 
that  the  allowance  of  appeals  to  England  in  all  revenue  cases 
would  be  extremely  troublesome  and  intolerable;  and  that, 
while  fees  for  trials  of  revenue  cases  during  the  regular  court 
term  had  not  been  demanded,  it  would  be  very  burdensome 
to  allow  the  summoning  of  special  courts  and  juries  "vpon 
the  meere  pleasure  of  such  officers  as  may  desire  to  give 
trouble  &  disquiet  to  persons,  w'^'out  any  service  to  his 

»  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  V,  pp.  347,  348 ;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  198,  199,  240. 

2  The  Massachusetts  mint  was  active  during  this  entire  period  and  coined 
silver  money  of  which  one  shilling  was  equal  to  ninepence  sterling,  "upon 
designe  to  keep  it  from  being  carried  out  again."  C.  0. 1/34,  59 ;  C.  O.  1/35, 
50 ;  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  V,  pp.  29,  30.  Spanish  money,  the  well-known  pieces  of 
eight,  were  also  made  current  in  the  colony  at  a  similariy  over-valued  rate 
with  the  same  object.  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  IV,  Part  II,  p.  533 ;  V,  p.  351.  In 
1681,  Lord  Culpeper  told  the  Lords  of  Trade  that  this  debasement  of  the 
coin  by  the  Boston  mint  was  extremely  prejudicial  to  all  dealing  with 
the  colony,  as  unless  a  special  contract  were  made  it  was  current  in  all 
payments  as  equivalent  to  one  shilling  sterling.  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  99> 
100. 

'  "The  acts  of  trade,  so  fan*  as  they  conceme  vs,  shall  be  strictly  observed 
in  this  colonje;  and  that  all  due  encouragement  and  assistance  shallbe 
given  to  his  maj*^®^  ofl&cers  and  informers  that  may  prosecute  the  breaches 
of  sajd  acts  of  trade  and  navigation." 


,._ _,/ 


MASSACHUSETTS 


295 


maj*^*',"  unless  some  compensation  were  demanded.^  They 
were  also  instructed  to  contend  that  the  customs  officers 
should  be  liable  for  damages  arising  out  of  the  unwarranted 
detention  of  goods.  Furthermore,  they  were  to  represent 
that  the  small  import  duties  levied  by  them,  which  some 
considered  illegal,  mainly  in  so  far  as  they  were  collected 
on  goods  from  England,^  were  necessary  for  the  support  of 
their  government.  In  addition,  they  were  instructed  to 
petition  the  King  that,  on  payment  of  the  1673  plantation 
duties,  the  enumerated  goods  might  be  shipped  anywhere, 
and,  if  sent  to  England,  that  no  further  duties  on  them 
should  be  exacted  there.  As  regards  the  fundamental 
political  question  at  issue,  the  agents  were  instructed  not  to 
consent  to  anything  that  might  violate  or  infringe  the  liber- 

^  In  1682,  Randolph  pointed  out  in  connection  with  this  demand  of  Massa- 
chusetts, that  in  1680  he  had  held  over  one  case  until  the  regular  session  of  the 
court,  but  had  lost  the  action  and  was  then  arrested  in  a  suit  for  £800 
damages  for  demurrage,  so  that  he  had  been  forced  to  have  cases  tried 
quickly.     C.  C.  1681-1685,  P-  3io- 

2  These  duties  were  very  low,  being  one-penny  in  the  pound,  and  raised 
an  inconsiderable  revenue.  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  IV,  Part  IE,  pp.  409,  410 ;  C.  O. 
1/41,  31;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  124-126.  In  1681,  Randolph  inquired 
whether  Massachusetts  had  the  legal  right  to  impose  such  customs.  The 
Attorney-General  replied  that  in  his  opinion  the  charter  did  not  warrant 
the  levying  of  such  duties  upon  any  but  such  as  were  'free  of  the  Company.' 
C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  59,  60.  At  this  time,  considerable  stress  was  laid  upon 
the  fact  that  Massachusetts  collected  these  duties  on  goods  from  England. 
Cf.  J.  W.,  A  Letter  from  New-England  (London,  1682),  p.  3.  Somewhat 
later,  Charles  Davenant  proposed  that  the  colonies  be  prohibited  from  lay- 
ing such  duties  as  the  practice  was  "unwarrantable  by  the  Laws  of  Eng- 
land." Davenant,  Discourses  on  the  Public  Revenue  and  on  the  Trade  of 
England  (London,  1698),  II,  p.  243.  On  this,  see  also  ante,  Vol.  II,  pp.  163, 
164  n. 


>•■ 


(! 
^ 


'l^J 


'>*, 


I  h 


il: 
ill 


296 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


ties  conferred  by  their  charter;  but,  if  anything  of  that  nature 
were  proposed,  they  were  to  plead  lack  of  instructions  and 
to  consult  the  Massachusetts  authorities  before  answering. 
As  has  been  well  said,  "this  brought  the  negotiation  —  for 
such  it  essentially  was  —  back  to  the  point  where  all  the 
earher  efforts  which  had  been  made  to  reach  an  understand- 
ing had  broken  down."  ^  The  EngHsh  government  was  by 
this  time  fully  convinced  that  some  modification  of  the  char- 
ter was  necessary,  but  the  agents  had  been  specifically  de- 
barred from  taking  any  action  whatsoever  on  this  subject. 

When,  in  the  late  summer  of  1682,  the  agents  of  Massachu- 
setts handed  to  the  English  government  the  colony's  be- 
lated answer  to  the  various  complaints  of  the  preceding 
years,  it  was  found  unsatisfactory;  and  they  were  ordered 
forthwith  to  procure  sufficient  powers  to  consent  to  an  ade- 
quate regulation  of  their  government,  failing  which,  they 
were  told,  proceedings  against  the  charter  would  be  insti- 
tuted.2  At  the  same  time,  during  this  year  1682,  Randolph 
was  sending  from  Boston  reports  which  showed  conclusively 
that  under  the  existing  poHtical  conditions  there  was  but 
scant  prospect  of  securing  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  of 
trade.  It  is  true  that,  in  February  of  1682,  Massachusetts 
passed  a  law  which  went  much  further  than  anything  of  this 
nature  hitherto  done  by  the  colony,  and  which  apparently 
showed  a  desire  to  secure  the  enforcement  of  the  laws.  But 
this  Act  was  obviously  designed  to  keep  the  administration 

*  Osgood,  op.  cit.  HE,  p.  329. 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  288-290,  296;  Toppan,  Randolph  HI,  pp.  191  et 
seq. 


MASSACHUSETTS 


297 


of  the  laws  of  trade  virtually  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the 
officials  of  the  colony  and  to  lessen  the  legitimate  scope  of 
Randolph's  authority.  This  feature,  as  well  as  other  defects, 
were  explained  in  great  detail  in  the  Collector's  despatches 
to  England.  But  at  the  same  time  Randolph  advanced 
claims  to  powers  in  excess  of  those  warranted  by  the  statute 
conferring  upon  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  juris- 
diction in  the  colonies.  If  the  colony  sought  to  diminish 
Randolph's  sphere  of  activity,  he  at  the  same  time  tried  to 
exclude  the  local  officials  from  all  direct  participation  in 
the  enforcement  of  these  Acts  of  ParKament.  But  these 
statutes  had  made  all  the  colonial  governors,  not  only 
those  in  the  royal  provinces,  directly  responsible  for  their 
execution. 

The  Massachusetts  law  in  question,^  the  Naval  Office 
Act,  provided  for  the  formal  proclamation  and  strict  observ- 
ance of  the  Navigation  Act  of  1660  and  the  Staple  Act  of 
1663,  and  established  a  Naval  Officer  at  Boston  ^  and  also 
one  at  Salem  and  the  adjacent  ports  for  entering  and  clear- 
ing ships,  taking  the  enumeration  bonds,  and  receiving  the 
certificates  issued  by  the  EngHsh  customs  authorities, 
^'according  as  in  sajd  acts  is  directed."  Randolph  pointed 
out  2  that  this  law  ignored  the  King's  proclamation  of  1675  * 

1  C.  O.  1/48,  34;  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  V,  p.  337. 

2  James  Russell,  the  Boston  Naval  Officer,  was  the  colony's  Treasurer. 
Mass.  Col.  Rec.  V,  pp.  265,  308.     For  his  commission,  see  ihid.  p.  338. 

'  C.  O.  1/48,  III.     See  also  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  213,  214,  238,  239; 
Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  123-126,  130-132. 

<  British  Royal  Proclamations,  1603-1783  (American  Antiqu.  Society, 
191 1),  pp.  126-128. 


H 


\ 


'I 


m  \ 


298 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


MASSACHUSETTS 


299 


/'      1 


\  Mi 


I -I 


1i| 


'li 


'I  I 


I    9/ 


i\ 


and  a  number  of  the  fundamental  statutes  constituting  the 
colonial  commercial  code,  especially  the  Statute  of  Frauds 
in  the  Customs  of  1662  and  the  Act  of  1673  imposing  the  so- 
called  plantation  duties.    Hence  these  two  laws  were  not 
deemed  to  be  of  force  in  the  colony  and  it  was  upon  the 
latter  that  Randolph's  authority  rested.    The  Act  of  1673, 
which  gave  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  jurisdiction 
in  the  colonies,  was  of  unquestionable  force  there,  but  the 
vaUdity  of  the  statute  of  1662  in  the  colonies  was  open  to 
legitimate  doubts.    This  Act  referred  to  the  customs  officials 
in  England  and  gave  them  exceptional  powers  in  enforcing 
the  laws.^    At  the  tune  of  its  passage  it  was  naturally  not 
meant  to  apply  to  the  colonies,  since  as  yet  no  imperial  cus- 
toms officials  had  been  established  in  them.     But  in  1678, 
when  Randolph  had  been  originaUy  appointed  CoUector,  he 
was  ordered  to  enforce  this  law.^    The  Customs  Board  was 
evidently,  however,  in  serious  doubt  about  the  legaHty  of 
this  instruction,  for  three  years  later  it  recommended  that 
the  Act  in  question  be  extended  to  the  colonies.^    In  point 
of  fact,  this  disputed  question  was  definitely  settled  only  in 
1696,  when  Parliament  specificaUy  extended  this  statute  to 
the  colonies.^    Thus,  while  the  colony  was  open  to  serious 
criticism  for  not  proclaiming  the  Act  of  1673,  it  had  good 
legal  grounds  for  questioning  the  force  of  the  Statute  of 
Frauds  in  the  Customs,  and  for  refusing  to  recognize  the 

1  13  &  14  Ch.  n,  c.  II,  §§  XV,  xvi,  xviii. 

2  Toppan,  Randolph  IH,  pp.  19-30- 
»  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  104. 
«7&8W.in,c.  22,§vi. 


exceptionally  broad  powers  that  it  would  have  conferred 
upon  Randolph.^ 

In  addition,  the  Massachusetts  Naval  Office  Act  con- 
tained some  objectionable  clauses.  It  provided  that,  if  an 
official  secured  the  holding  of  a  special  court  and  jury  for 
the  trial  of  a  seizure,  he  should  be  liable  for  all  costs,  and 
that,  if  any  person  were  injured  by  wrongful  seizure  or  search, 
he  could  recover  damages  in  any  of  the  colony's  courts.  This 
liability  to  suits  for  damages,  Randolph  claimed,  nullified 
his  powers,  and  the  obHgation  to  pay  the  costs  of  special 
courts,  he  pointed  out,  was  diametrically  opposed  to  the 
royal  instructions.^  Another  clause  of  the  colonial  law  in 
question  stipulated  that  vessels  engaged  in  the  New  England 
coastwise  trade  need  not  enter  or  clear,  unless  they  had 
loaded  more  than  one  ton  of  any  one  of  the  enumerated 
commodities.  Under  this  provision,  as  Randolph  showed, 
a  vessel  could  with  impunity  ship  in  the  aggregate  a  consid- 
erable quantity  of  these  commodities  to  foreign  ports.^ 

1  As  this  law  was  held  not  to  apply  in  Massachusetts,  Randolph  was  denied 
warrants  for  the  seizure  of  contraband  goods  in  warehouses.  Toppan,  Ran- 
dolph III,  pp.  164-167 ;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  254,  255.  See  also  C.  O.  1/48, 
III. 

2  In  1684,  Randolph  stated  that  the  total  amount  which  he  had  been 
compelled  to  pay  for  damages  and  costs  of  prosecution  was  £257  145.  cur- 
rency or  £193  6s.  sterling.  Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  341,  342.  For  the 
details,  see  ibid.  pp.  342-351. 

3  C.  O.  1/48,  III ;  C.  O.  1/49,  Part  II,  145.  Randolph  also  criticized  as 
without  legal  warrant  the  appointment  of  the  naval  officers  by  the  General 
Court  instead  of  by  the  Governor,  and  besides  he  claimed  that,  under  the 
Act  of  Parliament,  only  the  Governor  of  a  crown  colony,  and  consequently 
not  the  Massachusetts  Governor,  was  authorized  to  appoint  such  officials. 
Neither  of  these  points  was  well  taken.     Similarly,  Randolph  objected  to 


i> 


ll 


I' 


I  I 


r 


t 

I 

i 


■  I 


300 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


In  the  actual  performance  of  his  duties,  Randolph  was 
thwarted  by  these  and  additional  obstacles.^  His  authority 
under  the  letters  patent  of  his  office  to  search  vessels  was 
denied,  and  he  was  obUged  to  secure  special  warrants  for 
this  purpose  from  the  colony's  officials.^  Ships  refused  to 
enter  with  him,  taking  their  papers  to  the  Naval  Officer. 
When  seizures  made  by  him  were  brought  to  trial,  no  matter 
how  clear  the  case,  he  was  unable  to  secure  favorable 
verdicts  from  the  juries,  and  then  was  denied  appeals  to 
England.^  One  of  his  deputies,  who  had  made  seizure  of  a 
vessel,  was  sued  for  heavy  damages,  and  on  losing  the  case 
was  imprisoned  for  their  non-payment.* 

the  fact  that  these  naval  officers  were  empowered  to  take  enumeration 
bonds,  although  this  was  legitunately  a  part  of  their  duties.  C.  O.  1/48, 
III ;  Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  123-126;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  213,  214. 

*  Massachusetts  paid  to  Randolph  the  King's  moiety  of  the  fine  re- 
tamed  by  it,  about  which  he  had  complained  in  1681  to  the  English  gov- 
ernment, but  refused  to  reimburse  the  money  paid  by  him  for  special 
courts  held  in  1680.  Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  130-132,  213-216;  C.  C. 
1681-1685,  pp.  238,  239,  325,  326. 

« Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  128,  129.  The  Massachusetts  Naval 
Office  law  provided  that,  in  enforcing  the  Acts  of  Trade,  the  royal  officer 
should  be  assisted  and  be  given  warrants  by  the  Governor,  Deputy-Gov- 
ernor, and  the  magistrates.  On  the  margin  of  the  copy  of  this  Act  sent 
by  Randolph  to  England,  he  wrote  "but  not  without"  (such  warrants). 

C.  0.  1/48,  34. 

3  Toppan,  Randolph  HI,  pp.  213-216. 

*  C.  O.  1/49,  20;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  272-274,  296,  303;  Toppan,  Ran- 
dolph III,  pp.  184,  206.  This  seizure  arose  from  the  importation  of  some 
Canary  wine  that  was  unloaded  off  Boston  into  small  sailing  boats,  which 
then  brought  it  to  port.  The  testimony  was  sufficiently  clear.  C.  O.  i/49» 
Part  I,  nos.  16, 17.  As  a  result  of  these  proceedings,  Randolph  claimed  that 
no  one  was  willing  to  give  him  information  about  cases  of  illicit  trading  or  to 
give  evidence  before  a  magistrate. 


MASSACHUSETTS 


301 


As  a  result,  the  laws  were  most  ineffectually  enforced. 
Vessels  unloaded  their  prohibited  goods  before  entering  the 
harbor  of  Boston,  and  then  secured  an  unquestioned  entry 
at  the  Naval  Office  as  if  in  ballast  or  with  salt  from  some 
European  coimtry.^  In  other  cases,  this  devious  method 
was  not  resorted  to.  The  illegally  imported  goods  were  in 
the  main  fruits  and  wines  from  Spain,  Scotch  specialties, 
and  also  Canary  wines.  The  illegahty  of  the  direct  impor- 
tation of  Canary  wines  was,  however,  open  to  serious  ques- 
tion. In  all,  about  ten  specific  cases  of  such  contraband 
trading  were  reported  by  Randolph,^  but  it  is  a  legitimate 
presumption  that  there  were  other  instances  that  escaped 
his  vigilance.  In  the  aggregate,  the  amount  of  smuggled 
goods  was  apparently  not  large,^  but  this  illegal  trade,  in 
combination  with  the  obstructions  placed  in  Randolph's 
path  and  the  questions  raised  as  to  the  validity  in  the  col- 
ony of  parliamentary  statutes,*  made  the  existing  situation 
a  serious  one.  In  viev/  of  his  experiences,  it  is  not  surpris- 
ing that  Randolph  again  advocated  the  institution  of  pro- 
ceedings to  annul  the  charter.*^ 


y 


:  \ 


n 


»  C.  0.  1/48,  III. 

2  Ibid.;  Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  164-168;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  254- 
256,  295. 

'  The  value  of  five  seizures  made  by  Randolph  in  1682  and  subsequently 
freed  by  the  verdict  of  the  court  was  £1170  currency  or  £877  105.  sterling. 
The  value  of  the  seizures  made  by  him  in  1680  was  £1650  currency.  C.  O. 
1/49,  Part  II,  105. 

*  Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  149-154;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  244. 

'^  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  248,  249,  272-274 ;  Toppan,  Randolph  HI,  pp. 
184  ei  seq,;  C.  O.  1/49,  20.  Copies  of  Randolph's  memorials  of  the  preced- 
ing year,  urging  such  a  course,  had  been  forwarded  to  Boston  and,  on  his 


m 


i 


*' 


302 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Randolph  stated  that  these  obstructive  tactics  emanated 
from  the  extreme  party  in  the  colony  under  the  lead  of  the 
Deputy-Governor,  Thomas  Danforth.  These  men  were 
closely  watching  the  course  of  poHtical  events  in  England  — 
especially  the  fortunes  of  the  Whig  leader,  Shaftesbury  — 
evidently  hoping  that  a  crisis  there  would  divert  atten- 
tion from  imperial  questions  and  again  allow  Massachusetts 
to  go  its  way  unmolested.  Randolph  claimed  that  this 
party  was  in  a  large  minority,  but  the  number  of  those  who 
sympathized  with  these  irreconcilables  —  above  all  in  the 
country  districts  which  had  remamed  comparatively  un- 
touched by  the  growing  commercial  spirit  —  was  far  greater 
than  he  realized.  Governor  Bradstreet,  who  was  of  the 
moderate  party,  which  was  rapidly  gaining  m  numbers  and 
influence,  had  in  general  supported  Randolph  in  the  per- 
formance of  his  duties.  But  the  aged  Governor  could  not 
successfully  contend  against  a  group  animated  with  the  one- 
eyed  zeal  of  something  closely  akin  to  fanaticism.^  As 
Randolph  proposed  to  return  to  England  early  in  1683, 
Bradstreet  requested  him  not  to  do  anything  to  the  preju- 
dice of  Massachusetts;  but  Randolph  replied  ^  that  nothing 
had  been  insisted  on  at  Whitehall  but  what  had  arisen  from 

return  there,  he  was  threatened  with  prosecution  as  a  subverterof  their  gov- 
ernment. C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  216,  217.  Randolph  also  caUed  the  atten- 
tion of  the  EngUsh  government  to  the  fact  that  Massachusetts  levied  dues 
on  English  shipping,  from  which  vessels  built  and  owned  in  the  colony 
were  exempt.     C.  O.  1/49,  Part  II,  145. 

1  C.  O.  1/49,  20;  Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  130-132,  142-144,  164-167, 
184,  213-216;  C.  C.  1681-168S,  pp.  216,  217,  238-240,  254-256,  272-274, 

2' Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  221  et  seq.;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  379-381. 


MASSACHUSETTS 


303 


some  unwarranted  act  of  the  Massachusetts  legislature  or 
some  contmued  neglect  of  the  King's  orders,  so  that  it  was 
apparent  that  all  their  'loyal  addresses  have  been  made 
simply  to  protract  time  and  avoid  compliance  with  the  regu- 
lations prescribed/    He  significantly  added   that  the  law 
officers  of  the  Crown  had  already  given  their  opinion  that 
there  were  sufficient  grounds  to  vacate  the  charter.     Such 
an  outcome  was  inevitable,  for  at  this  very  time  the  General 
Court  again  absolutely  refused  to  consider  any  fundamental 
change  m  their  political  system,^  though  so  modifying  the 
Naval  Office  Act  of  the  precedmg  year   as  to   insure   a 
better  enforcement  of  the  laws  of  trade.^    Accordingly,  in 
the  summer  of  1683,  the  Attorney-General  was  instructed 
to  institute  quo  warranto  proceedings  agamst  the  Massachu- 
setts charter,  and  Randolph,  who  was  again  in  England,  was 
ordered  to  furnish  him  with  the  evidence  on  which  to  base 
the  government's  case.^    The  fundamental  charge  was  that 
the  colony  had  in  a  number  of  specific  instances  exceeded 
the  powers  conferred  by  the  charter  ^  and  had  usurped  "  to 

1  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  V,  pp.  386-392. 

2  In  reference  to  this  law,  the  General  Court  wrote  to  the  agents  in  Eng- 
land: "We  haue  also  agreed  vpon  such  emendations  of  our  acts  of  trade  so 
that  they  doe  compleately  or  fully  agree  in  all  things  w^  the  lawes  of 
England."    Ibid.  pp.  383,  384. 

3  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  434,  449,  450- 

*  The  charges  made  by  Randolph  included  the  coining  of  money,  the 
refusal  of  appeals,  the  imposition  of  duties  on  goods  from  England,  the 
erection  of  a  Naval  Office  in  opposition  to  the  King's,  the  obstruction  of  the 
execution  of  the  laws  of  trade,  the  demand  for  security  from  royal  officials 
in  trials,  the  refusal  to  admit  the  force  of  several  Acts  of  Parliament,  the 
passage  of  laws  repugnant  to  those  of  England  and  their  refusal  to  repeal 


i 


fl 


\ 


i 


hi  I 


\. 


m 


i 


304 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


bee  a  body  politick."  ^  At  the  suggestion  of  Randolph,  who 
feared  that  news  of  these  proceedings  might  lead  to  'false 
insinuations'  about  the  future  of  the  colony,  a  declaration 
was  drawn  up  promising  to  respect  all  private  interests  and 
properties  and  to  regulate  the  charter  liberally,  provided 
the  Governor  and  Company  would  submit  and  not  defend 
the  suit.  Randolph  was  selected  to  carry  this  declaration 
to  the  colony  and  to  serve  legal  notice  of  the  proceedings.^ 
The  Assistants,  constituting  the  upper  house  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts legislature,  were  in  favor  of  submission;  but  the 
Deputies  refused  their  consent,  and  accordingly  an  attorney 
was  appointed  to  contest  the  suit  in  England.^  As  the  writ 
was  served  after  the  date  of  its  expiration,  the  EngHsh 
government  was  obliged  to  drop  the  quo  warranto  proceedings 
and  to  seek  a  remedy  by  other  legal  means.^  These  were 
successful,  and  finally,  in  the  fall  of  1684,  the  charter  of 
Massachusetts  was  annulled.^ 

Thus,  after  fifty-five  years  of  virtually  complete  self- 
government,  one  closely  approaching  a  status  of  political 
independence,  Massachusetts  lost  its  charter  liberties  and 
became  subject  to  the  direct  government  of  the  Crown. 
From  the  provincial  viewpoint  this  event  may  seem  a  mis- 

them,  the  continued  exaction  of  an  oath  of  fidelity  to  themselves.  Toppan, 
Randolph  III,  pp.  229,  230,  232-235 ;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  44°,  44i|  445, 
446. 

1  Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  297,  298 ;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  631. 

«  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  453,  454,  456,  473. 

» Ibid.  pp.  563,  587,  588,  599,  600,  610. 

*  Ibid.  p.  631. 

^  For  a  full  account  of  these  legal  proceedings,  see  Osgood,  op.  cit.  IIX, 
pp.  332-335. 


Ti^^* 


MASSACHUSETTS 


30s 


fortime,  and  in  a  broader  way  it  will  probably  always  con- 
tinue to  arouse  among  some  that  sympathy  which  is 
accorded  to  small  and  fairly  homogenous  communities  with 
a  type  of  culture  peculiar  to  themselves,  when  the  onward 
march  of  events  forces  them  out  of  their  isolation  and  makes 
them  parts  of  larger  political  bodies.  But  from  the  imperial 
standpoint  it  is  dif&cidt  to  conceive  of  any  other  possible 
outcome  at  that  time.  In  the  twenty  years  of  negotiation 
preceding  the  cancellation  of  the  charter,  the  English  gov- 
ernment had  shown  such  unparalleled  patience  as  to  suggest 
that  there  must  have  been  some  special  reason  for  its  mod- 
eration. It  was  not  thus  that  the  Stuart  monarchy  was 
wont  to  deal  with  refractory  subjects.  The  English  states- 
men of  the  day  did  not  refrain  from  energetic  measures  be- 
cause of  any  sympathy  with  the  religious  and  political  ideals 
of  Massachusetts.  Nor  did  they  feel  any  respect  for  local 
liberties  as  such.  But,  to  put  it  bluntly,  they  did  not  want 
to  be  bothered  with  this  problem,  whose  solution,  while  en- 
tailing infinite  worry  and  work,  promised  practically  no 
direct  national  advantage.  It  was  an  unwelcome  question, 
forced  upon  them  by  the  existing  situation,  which  neither 
they  nor  their  predecessors  had  any  hand  in  creating,  but 
which  arose  from  the  fact  that  a  body  of  Englishmen  had 
seceded  from  the  EngUsh  body  politic  and  had  formed  on 
American  soil  an  organic  political  community  modelled  on 
the  religious  and  political  creed  of  Puritanism.  According 
to  the  accepted  legal  doctrines,  these  men,  even  if  they  had 
so  wished,  could  not  expatriate  themselves,  and  thus  this 
community  was  in  the  eyes  of  all  unquestionably  English 

X  (2) 


] 


II 


4 


i 


i 


ir 


306 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


and  a  part  of  the  incipient  Empire.  But  Massachusetts 
corresponded  to  no  one  of  the  ideals  of  EngHsh  imperiaUsm, 
and,  according  to  the  economic  canons  then  appHed  in  test- 
ing the  value  of  colonies,  it  was  found  decidedly  lacking. 

Thus  the  Restoration  statesmen  saw  England  saddled 
with  a  colony  whose  possession  was  deemed  rather  disad- 
vantageous than  otherwise.  They  would  have  opposed  its 
transfer  to  France,  because  this  would  not  only  have  dimin- 
ished England's  prestige,  but  would  also  have  endangered  the 
safety  of  the  tobacco  colonies;  but  apparently  they  viewed 
with  careless  equanimity  the  possibility  of  its  virtual  po- 
litical independence.  This  general  attitude  explains  why, 
for  nearly  two.  decades  after  the  Restoration,  Massachusetts 
was  permitted  to  go  its  own  way  practically  unmolested. 
Far  different  would  England  have  acted  if  the  colony  had 
produced  tobacco,  sugar,  or  some  other  product  for  which 
there  was  an  extensive  demand  in  Europe.  Despite  the 
decentralized  and  cumbersome  administrative  machinery  of 
the  day,^  England  could  act  quickly  and  energetically  when 
the  occasion  warranted  it.  Within  a  few  months  of  the  re- 
ceipt of  the  news  of  Bacon's  actual  rebellion,  English  troops 
were  in  Virginia  to  suppress  it.  When,  however,  it  became 
apparent  that  the  independent  course  of  the  New  England 
traders  threatened  ultimately  to  divert  a  more  or  less 
considerable  part  of  the  trade  of  the  other  colonies  from 
England  and  that  these  illegal  practices  were  faciKtated  by 

1  On  this  subject,  Professor  C.  M,  Andrews  has  contributed  some  interest- 
ing remarks  in  his  paper  on  "  The  Value  of  London  Topography  for  American 
Colonial  History."    The  History  Teacher's  Magazine  IH,  5,  pp.  loi,  102. 


MASSACHUSETTS 


307 


the  failure  of  Massachusetts  to  recognize  and  enforce  the 
laws  of  trade,  England  was  obliged  to  interfere.  Even  then 
great  moderation  was  shown,  and  extreme  measures  were 
adopted  reluctantly  only  when  the  uncompromismg  attitude 
of  Massachusetts  permitted  no  other  alternative.  Had  the 
colony  admitted  without  question  the  vahdity  of  the  laws 
of  trade  and  assisted,  instead  of  obstructing,  Randolph  in 
their  enforcement,  the  abrogation  of  the  charter  would  in 
all  probabihty  have  been  averted.^ 

This  Massachusetts  could  have  done,  without  to  any 
marked  degree  injuring  its  commercial  prosperity.  The  laws 
of  trade  in  no  wise  interfered  with  the  colony's  fundamental 
economic  activities.  They  protected  its  ship-building  and 
carrying  trades  and  allowed  the  direct  exportation  of  fish, 
provisions,  lumber,  and  all  its  other  products  to  whatso- 
ever market  seemed  most  advantageous.  The  colony's  main 
economic  objections  to  them  were  that  the  enumerated  com- 
modities, which  they  secured  in  the  other  colonies,  could 
not  be  shipped  directly  to  foreign  markets,  and  that  the 
fruit,  oil,  and  wines  of  those  countries  of  southern  Europe, 
where  they  sold  their  fish,  could  not  be  imported  directly 
into  the  colony.  Apart  from  other  available  evidence,  it  is 
obvious  from  the  very  fact  that  export  duties  were  payable 

lOne  of  the  Massachusetts  agents,  Stoughton,  wrote  in  1677:  "The 
country's  not  taking  notice  of  these  acts  of  navigation  to  observe  them, 
hath  been  the  most  unhappy  neglect  that  we  could  have  fallen  mto,  for, 
more  and  more  every  day,  we  find  it  most  certain,  that  without  a  fair  com- 
pliance in  that  matter,  there  can  be  nothing  expected  but  a  total  breach,  and 
the  storms  of  displeasure  that  may  be."  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massa- 
chusetts (London,  1765)  I,  pp.  319,  320. 


^ 


f 


i\   > 


% 


308 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


MASSACHUSETTS 


309 


on  the  enumerated  commodities  when  shipped  to  another 
colony,  that  such  of  the  New  England  traders  as  violated 
the  laws  in  carrying  these  articles  to  foreign  countries  in  the 
main  shipped  directly  from  the  producing  colonies.    Had 
they  confined  themselves  to  such  exports  of  tobacco  and  not 
used  Massachusetts  as  an  entrepot  for  this  trade,  the  author- 
ities of  Virginia,  Maryland,  and  North  Carolina,  not  those 
of  their  colony,  would  have  been  held  accountable  for  the 
laxity  of  administration  which  permitted  these  transgres- 
sions.   Moreover,  the  New  Englander  had  no  legitimate 
grievance  against  the  pohcy  of   enumeration.    When    he 
bought  these  commodities  in  Virginia  or  in  Barbados,  he 
knew  that  the  law  required  their  shipment  either  to  England 
or  to  some  other  colony.    Whatever  burden  this  restriction 
imposed  was  borne  by  the  producer,  and  by  so  much  reduced 
the  price  paid  by  the  purchaser.    Thus,  in  general,  when  the 
Massachusetts  traders  shipped  tobacco  directly  from  Vir- 
ginia to  foreign  markets,  they  were  merely  seeking  an  addi- 
tional and  illegitimate  profit  beyond  that  which  they  could 
have  made,  had  the  trade  been  entirely  unrestricted.     It 
can,  however,  be  readily  understood  that  they  objected  to 
J:he  plantation  duties  of    1673  because,  even  after  their 
payment,  the  enumerated  commodities  could  not  be  sent  to 
foreign  countries,  and  on  arrival  in  England  had  again  to 
pay  customs  there.^     But  this  law  was  passed  specifically 

1  This  was  the  main  complaint  registered  by  Massachusetts  against  the 
laws.  In  1686,  the  Council  instructed  Robert  Mason,  who  was  leaving  for 
England,  to  urge  that  the  1673  duties  be  repaid  on  sugar  and  tobacco  im- 
ported there  from  New  England.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Proc.  Series  II,  XIII, 
pp.  244,  245. 


\\ 


for  the  purpose  of  making  the  illegal  shipment  of  these  goods 
from  Massachusetts  to  foreign  markets  unprofitable,  and  the 
double  taxation  could  have  been  nearly  entirely  avoided  by 
importing   into  the  colony  only  approximately  what  was 
needed  for  consumption  there.    Unquestionably  strict  con- 
formity with  the  English  regulations  would,  in  so  far  as 
this  was  concerned,  have  entaUed  no  appreciable  hardship. 
The  same,  though  to  a  much  less  extent,  is  true  of  the 
Staple  Act  of  1663.    The  bulk  of  the  manufactures  that  the 
colony  required  could  be  bought  in  England  about  as  ad- 
vantageously as  elsewhere.    It  was  not  alone  a  question  of 
price,   but  of   credit   also.      Occasionally  some    Scottish, 
French,  and  Dutch  goods  were  imported  directly,  but  in 
the  aggregate  this  amount  was  apparently  smaU  when  com- 
pared with  the  shipments  from  England.    Included  in  these 
shipments  were  foreign  manufactures,  such  as  Hamburg 
cloth  and  Portuguese  linen.^    The  main  violation  of  the  law 
consisted  in  the  direct  importation  of  wines,  fruits,  and  oil 
from  the  Mediterranean  countries  and  the  Canary  Islands. 
Of  these  commodities,  wine,  which  was  then  far  more  exten- 
sively consumed  than  at  the  present  time,  was  the  most  im- 
portant and  was  shipped  from  Massachusetts  to  the  more 
luxurious  plantation  colonies.     It  is,  however,  a  well-estab- 
Ushed  fact  that  the  favorite  beverage  of  these  planters  was 
Madeira  wine,  which  under  the  law  could  be,  and  was  in 

1  Randolph  gave  full  details  of  eight  cargoes  imported  from  England  in 
1682.  The  goods  included  coals,  woollens,  linens,  shoes,  dry  goods,  grind- 
stones, hats,  hose,  Hamburg  cloth,  coarse  Portuguese  linens,  etc.  C.  O. 
i/Si,  2. 


'II 


l\. 


3IO 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


MASSACHUSETTS 


3" 


4 


\ 


m 


large  quantities,  imported  directly  from  these  islands.  Under 
these  circumstances,  a  strict  enforcement  of  the  law  would 
not  have  meant  any  great  hardship,  but,  from  the  very  fact 
that  this  branch  of  illegal  trade  was  persisted  in  until  the 
time  of  the  American  Revolution,^  it  is  apparent  that  its 
complete  suppression  would  have  somewhat  adversely  af- 
fected the  interests  of  those  engaged  in  selling  salted  fish 
to  southern  Europe. 

On  the  whole,  however,  the  stringent  enforcement  of  the 
laws  of  trade  would  have  had  no  serious  effect  on  the  general 
economic  development  of  Massachusetts,^  and  hence  it  is  ap- 
parent that  the  colony's  persistent  opposition  to  this  system 
proceeded  in  part  from  other  than  purely  economic  motives. 
England  was  mainly  intent  on  securing  the  colony's  submis- 
sion to  these  laws  in  order  to  safeguard  the  nascent  com- 
mercial system,  while  Massachusetts 's  opposition  was  based 
predominantly  upon  the  political  consequences  implied  in 
their  full  recognition.  The  fundamental  charge  of  the 
English  government,  that  Massachusetts  without  warrant 
claimed  to  be  a  body  politic,  was  not  unjustified.  From 
many  of  its  official  and  unofficial  utterances  and  actions,  it  is 
plain  that  Massachusetts  regarded  itself  as  a  commonwealth 
bound  only  by  the  slenderest  of  ties  to  the  parent  state.^ 

*  Beer,  British  Colonial  Policy,  1754-1765,  pp.  239,  245. 

2  In  1684,  Governor  Bradstreet  wrote :  'I  have  heard  many  say  that  in 
their  irregular  trading  they  have  seldom  or  never  seen  their  own  money 
again,  and  are  resolved  wholly  to  give  it  over,  and  I  should  be  heartily  glad 
if  they  would.'     C.  C.  1681-1685,  P-  746. 

3  In  1683,  in  connection  with  a  compHcated  land  claim  in  New  England, 
an  appeal  was  made  to  the  King  in  Council,  and  an  order  was  issued  that  a 


Its  view  of   the  colonial  status  approached  that  of   the 
Greeks  and  diverged  radicaUy  from  the  prevaHing   con- 
cept, which   combined   elements  both  from   Roman   pro- 
vincial and  mediaeval  feudal  institutions.    As  the  Lords  of 
Trade  pointed  out,  the  Massachusetts  agents  in  England 
did  not  act  as  if  they  were  subjects  of  the  Crown,  but  like 
the  formally  accredited  representatives  of  a  foreign  power. 
Hence  the  colony  refused  to  recognize  the  supremacy  of 
Parliament,  and  held  that  the  Acts  of  Trade  were  not  in 
force  within  its  jurisdiction  unless  special  provision  to  this 
effect  had  been  made  by  its  own  legislature.    But  to  make 
such  provision  at  the  behest  of  the  English  government 
seemed  derogatory  to  the  dignity  and  independence  of  a 
legislature  claiming  virtual  sovereignty,  and  thus  such  action 
was  reluctantly  taken.     Moreover,  all  the  Acts  of  Trade 
were  not  included  in  this  colonial  law,  and  consequently 
the  validity  of  the  statute  of  1673  imposing  the  plantation 
duties  was  not  admitted.     Similarly,  the  colony  persistently 
opposed  and  obstructed  Randolph,  not  primarily  because 

certain  document  necessary  for  the  decision  of  the  case  should  be  supplied 
by  the  town  of  Braintree  and  sent  to  England.  The  individual  interested 
in  the  case  complained  that,  when  he  showed  this  Order  in  Council,  the  town 
authorities  defied  him  to  prove  the  seal  to  be  that  of  the  Privy  Council, 
saying  that  for  all  they  knew  it  might  have  been  signed  under  a  hedge  and 
that  "  Yo"^  Msi^f  had  nothing  to  doe  with  them,  They  were  a  ffree  People." 
C.  O.  I/S3,  65 ;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  347,  402,  613.  In  1680,  in  support  of 
a  proposal  to  allow  the  French  West  Indies  to  sell  their  nun  and  molasses 
to  the  English  colom'es,  the  Intendant,  Patoulet,  wrote  to  Colbert:  "The 
English  who  dwell  near  Boston  will  not  worry  themselves  about  the  prohi- 
bitions which  the  king  of  England  may  issue,  because  they  hardly  recognize 
his  authority."    S.  L.  Mims,  Colbert's  West  India  Policy,  p.  222. 


If 


312 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


I 

i 


SI 


he  was  interfering  with  their  trade,  but  chiefly  because  he 
was  the  representative  of  what  was  regarded  almost  as  an 
alien  power  and  whatever  recognition  was  given  to  the 
authority  vested  in  him  by  the  Crown  by  so  much  dimin- 
ished the  extent  of  the  colony's  self-government. 

This  position  of  Massachusetts  was  wholly  untenable. 
The  policy  of  its  leaders  was  fatuous,  as  its  logical  conclu- 
sion was  either  the  abrogation  of  the  charter  or  the  severance 
of  all  political  ties  with  England;  and  the  colony  was  pre- 
pared to  accept  neither  of  these  alternatives.    Massachu- 
setts was  neither  ready  nor  willing  to  assume  the  burdens 
and  responsibilities  of  complete  independence.    Those  who 
may  have  contemplated  such  an  outcome  must  have  realized 
its  impossibihty,  even  if  England  had  been  acquiescent.    In- 
dependence would  have  entaHed  economic  ruin,  as  the  Navi- 
gation Acts  would  have  prevented  the  sale  of  their  ships 
in  England  ^  and  would  have  debarred  them  from  all  trade 
with  the  other  EngUsh  colonies.    As  was  shrewdly  pointed 
out  during  these  controversies,  "  the  New  Englanders  can  re- 
volt to  no  other  nation  because  they  can  have  no  plantations 
to  trade  withall."  ^     Their  vessels  could  not  have  entered 
any  EngHsh  port  in  the  West  Indies,  and  in  the  Mediter- 
ranean they  would  have  been  preyed  upon  by  the  Barbary 
pirates.    Moreover,  Massachusetts  needed  the  strong  arm 

1  Foreign  vessels  bought  after  1662  were  not  free  under  the  Navigation 
Acts.    In  a  pamphlet  of  1689  it  was  stated  that  "great  Numbers"  of  ships 
were  built  in  New  England  and  sold  in  the  mother  country.    A  Brief  Rela- 
tion of  the  State  of  New  England  (London,  1689),  in  Force  IV,  no.  11 
pp.  7, 8. 

2  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  MSS.  28,089,  f.  3- 


MASSACHUSETTS 


313 


of  England  against  her  aggressive  French  neighbors.  Thus 
Massachusetts  was  satisfied  to  remain  within  the  Empire, 
but  while  claiming  all  the  privileges  of  a  colony,  disavowed 
and  disregarded  most  of  the  complementary  duties  and  ob- 
ligations. It  was  this  anomalous  situation  that  inevitably 
brought  about  the  revocation  of  the  charter. 


/! 


THE  DOMINION  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 


315 


1 

^1! 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE  DOMINION  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 

Attitude  of  Massachusetts  on  the  loss  of  the  charter  —  English  plans  for 
the  political  reconstruction  of  New  England— The  failure  of  royal  govern- 
ment in  New  Hampshire  and  the  situation  there  — New  Plymouth, 
Rhode  Island,  and  Connecticut  —  Joseph  Dudley's  administration  and 
that  of  Andros  —  The  EngUsh  government's  plan  to  reorganize  all  the 
charter  colonies  —  Inclusion  of  the  Jerseys  and  New  York  in  the  Domin- 
ion —  New  York's  development  as  an  English  colony. 

Fifty  years  before  this,  in  1635,  when  had  been  instituted 
similar  proceedings  against  the  charter,  Massachusetts  had 
actively  prepared  for  violent  resistance.  Now  there  was  no 
thought  of  forcible  opposition  to  the  decree  of  the  court.^ 

1  Some  inflammatory  protests  had  been  made  against  a  surrender  of 
the  charter  without  defending  the  government's  suit,  and  Joseph  Dudley 
and  some  other  moderates,  who  in  1683  had  advised  this  policy,  were 
punished  by  being  dropped  from  the  list  of  Assistants.  In  his  letter  to  the 
English  Secretary  of  State  narrating  these  facts,  Dudley  wrote :  'I  beseech 
you  on  my  knees  for  the  King's  favour  towards  the  Colony  that  no  severity 
may  be  used  to  spoil  the  growth  of  the  plantations.'  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp. 
606,  607,  628,  629,  633,  634,  669;  Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  283-285. 
From  this  time  on,  Dudley  was  regarded  with  undeserved  suspicion  by 
many  in  Massachusetts.  Stoughton  thought  the  failure  to  reelect  Dudley 
unjust,  and  accordingly  he,  and  Bulkeley  as  well,  resigned  from  the  upper 
house.  It  is  significant  that  three  of  the  four  agents,  who  had  represented 
the  colony  in  England  since  1677  and  were  better  qualified  than  any  others 
in  Massachusetts  to  judge  of  the  temper  of  the  English  government,  be- 
longed to  the  moderate  party  and  opposed  the  unconciUatory  attitude  of  the 

314 


In  these  intervening  decades  there  was  no  marked  increase 
in  the  spirit  of  loyalty  to  England,^  but  conditions  had  al- 
tered radically.  At  the  former  date,  Massachusetts  was  an 
isolated  commimity  in  the  centre  of  a  wilderness  and  had 
little  to  dread  from  its  weak  foreign  neighbors.  But  now 
the  government  of  Louis  XIV  was  pursuing  an  energetic 
colonial  poHcy  and,  in  seeking  to  extend  the  power  of 
France,  came  into  conflict  with  English  interests  in  New 
York,  in  Hudson  Bay,  and  in  Nova  Scotia.  French  activity 
in  Nova  Scotia  was  especially  ominous  for  Massachusetts, 
since  its  fishermen  were  plying  their  trade  on  the  coasts  of 
that  region.  The  base  of  the  New  England  fishery  was  con- 
stantly shifting  farther  north.  In  1667,  under  the  pressure 
of  defeat,  England  had  restored  to  France  Nova  Scotia, 
which  with  Dunkirk  and  Jamaica  represented  the  concrete 
results  of  Cromwell's  imperialistic  pohcy,  securing  at  the 
same  time  the  return  of  the  English  part  of  St.  Kitts,  which 
the  French  had  taken  during  the  hostilities  that  had  just 

stiff-necked  extremists.  At  this  time,  Stoughton  wrote  to  a  correspondent 
in  London:  "C  matters  here  are  not  in  so  good  a  frame  as  I  could  wish 
by  reason  of  many  distempered  Spirits  &  Actings.  Good  people  can  be 
out  of  order  as  well  as  others,  &  jealousies  &  hard  thoughts  of  one  another 
are  sure  to  be,  not  only  an  affiction  in  themselves,  but  a  wide  door  to  let 
in  many  sorrows  &  troubles."    Brit.  Mus.,  Stowe  MSS.  746,  f.  89. 

^  In  1683,  Governor  Cranfield  of  New  Hampshire  wrote  to  Sir  Leoline 
Jenkins  that  the  'prevailing  faction'  at  Boston  was  opposed  to  the  King, 
and  that  he  believed  they  would  'at  once  fall  off  from  their  allegiance 
to  the  Crown'  in  case  James,  Duke  of  York,  succeeded  to  the  throne. 
C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  388.  Cranfield  of  course  was  a  partisan,  but  there 
is  no  evidence  whatsoever  of  any  disinterested  loyalty  to  England,  except 
possibly  among  the  malcontents,  who,  however,  did  not  truly  represent 
the  spirit  of  Massachusetts. 


ii 


f 


Hi 


1 

! 


I': 


316 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


been  brought  to  a  close.^  Despite  its  independent  attitude 
towards  England,  Massachusetts  did  not  hesitate  to  register 
its  objections  to  this  clause  in  the  treaty,  pointing  out  to 
Lord  Arlington  that  '  the  parting  with  Nova  Scotia  or  Aca- 
dia for  St.  Christopher's  holds  slender  proportion,'  since  the 
French  possession  of  that  region  would  obstruct  their  peltry 
trade  and  interfere  with  their  fishery.^ 

During  the  following  fifteen  years  there  were  some  minor 
complaints  of  French  interference,^  but  it  was  only  at  the 
time  of  the  revocation  of  the  Massachusetts  charter  that 
these  fears  were  definitely  realized.  In  1684,  the  French 
Company,  which  had  secured  a  patent  for  the  Nova  Scotia 
fishery,  issued  a  prohibition  against  foreign  vessels  entering 
within  its  territorial  limits,  and  in  August  of  the  same  year 
eight  fishing  ships  belonging  to  Massachusetts  and  New 
Hampshire  were  seized.^  The  need  of  English  protection 
against  such  actions  was  a  potent  factor  in  preventing  any 
violent  opposition  to  the  decree  of  the  court  cancelling  the 
charter;  and,  moreover,  it  could  not  but  be  realized  that  a 
breach  with  England  would  inevitably  throw  Massachusetts 
into  the  arms  of  the  arch-enemy,  France.     Anglican  Eng- 

1  Treaty  of  Breda,  §§  vii,  x.  Dumont,  Corps  Universel  Diplomatique 
(Amsterdam,  1731)  VII,  i,  p.  41-  During  the  preliminary  discussions  of 
the  proposed  treaty  of  peace,  the  Earl  of  St.  Albans  threatened  to  break  off 
the  negotiations  unless  St.  Kitts  were  restored.  ArHngton's  Letters  (Lon- 
don, 1 701)  I,  pp.  1 1 7-1 20,  132-134. 

2  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  25,  26. 

3  See,  e.g.,  Governor  Bradstreet's  complaint  made  in  1680.  C.  O.  1/44, 
61  i.  For  some  details,  see  also  Lucas,  Canada  I,  pp.  180-182 ;  R.  McFar- 
land,  A  History  of  the  New  England  Fisheries,  pp.  72,  73. 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  688,  689,  743 ;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  141,  142,  261. 


THE  DOMINION  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 


317 


land  might  possibly  be  intolerable,  but,  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Puritan,  "papist'*  France  was  unquestionably  anathema 
maranatha. 

In  addition,  but  few  of  the  founders  of  Massachusetts 
still  remained  aUve.  The  second  generation  was  not  ani- 
mated by  the  stern  religious  ideaHsm  that  caused  Massa- 
chusetts to  take  so  bold  a  stand  in  1635.  In  part,  this  de- 
cline in  spiritual  fervor  ^  represented  the  inevitable  reaction 
against  the  extreme  views  of  the  founders  of  the  common- 
wealth. Human  nature  cannot  forever  dwell  upon  the 
heights.  Besides,  Massachusetts  had  developed  important 
economic  and  commercial  interests  which  would  be  imper- 
illed, if  not  ruined,  by  a  breach  with  the  mother  country. 
The  commercial  spirit's  regard  for  these  material  interests 
checked  the  uncompromising  Puritan's  innate  tendency  to 
resist.  Since  the  English  navy  could  at  will  drive  the 
colony's  trading  and  fishing  vessels  from  the  ocean,  there 
can  be  but  little  wonder  that  there  was  no  rebellion.  Mas- 
sachusetts was  essentially  a  sea-faring  and  commercial  com- 
munity, whose  prosperity  depended  upon  its  exports  of  fish, 
provisions,  and  lumber  to  southern  Europe,  the  Madeiras, 
and  the  other  English  colonies,  especially  the  sugar  islands 
in  the  West  Indies.^    According  to  Governor  Bradstreet's 

*  In  their  account  of  Boston  in  1680,  Dankers  and  Sluyter  refer  to  the 
prevailing  lack  of  religious  fervor.  They  apparently,  however,  judged 
subjectively  from  too  high  a  standard  and  tended  somewhat  to  exaggerate 
this  phase.  A  translation  of  their  journal  was  pubUshed  by  the  Long  Island 
Hist.  Soc.  in  1867. 

2  See  Andros's  report  on  New  England  of  1678  (C.  O.  1/42,  52 ;  Toppan, 
Randolph  II,  pp.  301-305 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  262-264 ;  C.  C.  1677- 


I 


I 


4 


<t 


I 


318 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


report  of  1680,  there  traded  annually  in  Massachusetts  from 
one  hundred  to  a  hundred  and  twenty  ships,  of  which  most 
belonged  to  the  colony.  These  trading  vessels  were  com- 
pletely at  the  mercy  of  a  hostile  English  fleet. 

On  the  revocation  of  the  charter,  it  became  necessary  for 
the  English  government  to  make  some  provision  for  the  ad- 
ministration of  Massachusetts,  and  in  this  connection  it  was 
immediately  decided  to  include  in  the  new  province  both 
Maine  and  New  Hampshire.^  In  the  latter  colony,  matters 
have  been  going  far  from  well.  It  was  only  in  1679,  two  years 
after  had  been  deUvered  the  opinion  of  the  law  officers  to  the 
effect  that  neither  the  proprietor  nor  Massachusetts  had  any 
warrant  for  exercising  jurisdiction  there  and  that  the  gov- 
ernment "remained  still  in  the  Crowne,"  that  royal  control 
was  established.  John  Cutt,  a  prominent  local  merchant, 
was  made  President  of  the  Council,  which  was  composed 
of  leading  men  in  the  colony,  and  they  were  empowered 
to  call  an  assembly  within  three  months.^  Furthermore, 
Mason's  ownership  of  the  unimproved  lands  was  recognized, 
and  he  was  authorized  to  collect  quit-rents  of  a  not  un- 
reasonable size  from  the  possessors  of  the  developed  tracts.' 

These  territorial  rights  of  the  Mason  family  were  legally 

1680,  p.  233) ;  the  answers  of  Stoughton  and  Bulkeley  to  the  queries  in  1678 
(C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  269-270) ;  Bradstreet's  answers  to  the  queries  in  1680 
(C.  O.  1/44,  61  i;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  528-530). 

^  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  718,  719.  The  possibility  of  having  to  use  force 
was  contemplated  by  some  in  England.  Ormonde  MSS.  (H.M.C.  1912), 
New  Series  VII,  pp.  289,  291. 

^  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  851-856;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  362,  390,  391. 

'  C.  C.  1677-1680,  p.  384. 


I 


THE  DOMINION  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 


319 


of  unquestionable  validity,  but  from  the  independent  tem- 
per of  the  New  Hampshire  people  it  could  readily  have  been 
predicted  that  the  settlers  would  not  be  wiUing  to  pay  rents 
on  the  strength  of  an  ancient  grant,  which  had  never  been 
enforced.  Mason  was  naturally  not  able  to  collect  his  legal 
dues,  and  returned  to  England  with  bitter  complaints  against 
those  entrusted  with  the  colony's  government.  In  addition, 
Randolph,  whose  commission  included  New  Hampshire,  was 
on  a  smaller  scale  having  the  same  experiences  there  that 
he  had  in  Massachusetts.  The  basic  industry  of  New 
Hampshire  was  lumbering,^  and,  as  the  laws  of  trade  did  not 
in  any  way  restrict  the  free  exportation  of  timber,  it  is  apn 
parent  that  the  opposition  to  Randolph  and  his  deputies  was 
more  political  than  economic  in  its  nature.  Much  the  same 
social  conditions  and  the  same  political  ideals  prevailed 
in  New  Hampshire  as  in  Massachusetts.  Although  the 
government  was  in  the  hands  of  royal  appointees,  these  men 
were  colonials  imbued  with  the  same  independent  religio- 
political  views  that  obtained  in  the  neighboring  colony. 

In  1680,  the  President  and  Council  appointed  a  special 
official  to  take  entries  from  all  ships  and  to  see  to  the  exe- 
cution of  the  Acts  of  Trade  and  Navigation.^  Captain 
Walter  Barefoote,  one  of  Randolph's  deputies,  was  fined  for 
obliging  vessels  to  enter  and  clear  with  him,  without  first 
having  secured  authorization  from  the  President  and  Coun- 
cil.^   On  another  occasion,  Barefoote  and  two  other  depu- 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  38,  39. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  38,  39 ;   New  Hampshire  State  Papers  XIX,  p.  668, 

^  New  Hampshire  State  Papers  XIX,  pp.  665,  666. 


=t 


ill 


i| 


i 


m\ 


I 


/ 


I 


/t» 


*•' 


i 

»1 


I 


I 


320 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


ties  were  haled  before  the  Council  because  of  a  seizure 
made  by  them.    Their  authority  was  questioned,  and  they 
were  fined  because  the  Council  maintained  that  they  had 
shown  no  cause  justifying  the  seizure  of  this  vessel.^    From 
Randolph  himself  was  demanded  surety  covering  the  costs 
of  the  trial  of  a  seizure  made  by  him,  but  he  refused  to 
comply.    The  owner   of  the   ship  in  question  then  sued 
Randolph  for  trespass,  and  succeeded  in  recovering  a  small 
sum  as  damages  as  well  as  the  costs  of  the  trial.^     In  view 
of  these  facts,^  it  was  determined  to  take  the  government 
out  of  the  hands  of  those  responsible  for  this  obstruc- 
tion, which  tended  to  nuUify  the  parliamentary  commercial 
system. 

Accordingly  in  1682,  Edward  Cranfield,  who  had  been 
employed  as  one  of  the  Commissioners  to  superintend  the 
removal  of  the  EngHsh  settlers  from  Surinam  after  its  final 
cession  to  the  Dutch  in  1674,*  was  appointed  Governor  of 
New  Hampshire.^  He  was  instructed  to  suspend  from  the 
CouncH  Richard  Waldem,  who  had  succeeded  to  the  presi- 
dency on  Cutt's  death  in  1681,6  and  Richard  Martyn  — the 
leaders  in  the  opposition  to  Mason  and  Randolph.^  Shortly 
after  his  arrival  m  the  colony,  in  the  fall  of  1682,  Cranfield 
reported  that  Mason  had  grievously  misrepresented  condi- 
tions, that  the  people  were  not  disloyal,  and,  though  he  had 

1  New  Hampshire  State  Papers  XIX,  pp.  683,  684. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  662-665 ;  C.  O.  i/s4,  Part  II,  102 ;  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  44- 

3  See  also  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP.  187,  203,  234,  311,  312;  Goodrick,  Ran- 
dolph VI,  pp.  95-98,  118-120.  *  C.  O.  278/3,  ff.  i-io  et  passim. 

^  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  199,  2CXD,  213. 

•  Ibid.  p.  45.  7  /^    p    213. 


THE  DOMINION  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 


321 


at  first  suspended  Waldern  and  Martyn  from  the  Council, 
after  investigation  of  the  charges,  he  had  readmitted  them.^ 
But  within  a  month  Cranfield  had  completely  veered  around 
from  this  attitude  of  friendly  sympathy  to  one  of  strong 
hostility  to  the  leaders  of  the  colony.  On  December  30, 
1682,2  he  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  that  'his  mind  had 
totally  changed,'  that  the  Council  and  chief  inhabitants  are 
part  of  the  grand  combination  of  Church  members  and  Con- 
gregational Assemblies  throughout  New  England,'  and  that 
the  people  were  not  loyal.^  During  the  two  following  years 
this  quarrel  between  Cranfield  and  the  leading  men  in  the 
colony  continued  with  increasing  intensity  and  bitterness. 
Both  sides  lacked  a  reasonable  spirit  that  would  admit  of 
compromise.  The  Assembly  was  at  loggerheads  with  the 
Governor,  and  legislation  was  at  a  standstill. 

This  impossible  situation  was  largely  the  outcome  of 
Cranfield's  arbitrary  efforts  to  enforce  Mason's  territorial 
rights  and  of  the  steadfast  determination  of  the  settlers  not 
to  pay  any  rent.*     But  in  addition  the  colony,  in  much  the 

1  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  312,  313,  342-344.  Cf.  Goodrick,  Randolph  VI, 
pp.  1 1 5-1 18,  120-125. 

2  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  361,  362.     See  also  Goodrick,  Randolph  VI,  pp. 

130-133- 

^  More  specifically,  he  complained  that  a  Scottish  vessel,  which  had  been 

allowed  to  trade,  was  freed  on  trial  by  the  jury.  The  jury  subsequently 
changed  its  verdict,  but  the  judgment  could  not  be  enforced  as  the  vessel 
had  been  allowed  to  escape.  On  this  case,  see  also  New  Hampshire  Col. 
Rec.  I,  pp.  491-496;  Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  216-219;  C.  C.  1681- 
1685,  pp.  362,  363,  516,  517.     Cf.  Goodrick,  Randolph  VI,  pp.  130-133- 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  575-578,  666,  667,  670,  697-701,  702-704.  Cran- 
field stated  that  if  every  man  paid  the  quit-rents  of  td.  in  the  pound,  the 
revenue  would  not  amount  to  over  £100.    C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  343,  349. 

Y  (2) 


I'' 

I 


4 


iiii 


!' 


III 


'\( 


'•/■ 


I*- 


322 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


l'> 


1 

1 

M, 

ft 


J 


same  spirit  as  Massachusetts,  resented  the  presence  of 
English  officials  in  its  midst,  and  failed  to  pay  due  regard  to 
the  laws  of  trade.  According  to  Cranfield,  goods  were  im- 
ported directly  from  Scotland,^  and  he  claimed  to  believe  that 
there  was  a  design  to  make  the  colony  a  centre  of  irregular 
trading.^  Randolph's  deputy,  in  one  instance  at  least,  was 
maltreated  in  the  performance  of  his  duties.^  Occasionally 
a  ship  was  condemned,^  but  in  general  the  laws  could  not 
be  effectively  enforced  in  face  of  the  popular  opposition  to 
the  royal  officials.^  Finally  Cranfield,  worn  out  by  this 
constant  bickering,  requested  leave  of  absence  and,  on  it 
being  accorded,  expressed  the  hope  that  he  might  never  again 
be  ordered  to  New  Hampshire.^     Five  months  or  so  later, 

Randolph,  who  was  always  prone  to  criticize  his  fellow  officials,  held  that 
Cranfield's  conduct  was  oppressive  and  arbitrary.  Toppan,  Randolph  IV, 
pp.  3,  4,  17. 

1  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  368,  369 ;  Goodrick,  Randolph  VI,  pp.  130-133. 
In  this  connection,  Cranfield  requested  the  Attorney- General's  ruling, 
whether  or  no  Scotsmen  could  act  as  factors  or  merchants  in  the  colonies, 
as  in  his  opinion  the  Navigation  Act  prohibited  it.  The  people  in  New 
Hampshire  contended  correctly  that  all  born  within  the  King's  allegiance 
could  so  act.     See  ante,  Vol.  I,  pp.  89-91. 

2  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  389.  In  1683,  with  the  object  of  preventing  for- 
bidden goods  from  being  imported  into  New  Hampshire  in  small  sloops, 
the  Governor  and  Council  prohibited  the  entry  of  any  vessel  of  less  than 
one  hundred  tons  from  Boston.    New  Hampshire  Col.  Rec.  I,  pp.  463,  464. 

'  C.  O.  1/54,  Part  I,  50  V,  vi. 

*  In  the  case  of  the  ship  Diligence,  condemned  in  1684,  the  owner  William 
Vaughan  appealed  to  England,  but  the  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council  in 
1686  confirmed  the  judgment.  C.  O.  5/940,  f.  162 ;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p. 
300-  ^  Cf.  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  412,  413. 

^  In  this  letter  of  Jan.  6,  1683,  Cranfield  further  wrote:  *I  esteem  it  the 
greatest  happiness  of  my  life  to  remove  from  among  these  people,  the  rather 


THE  DOMINION  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 


323 


in  the  summer  of  1685,  he  departed  for  Barbados.^    In  view 
of  this  unsatisfactory  state  of  affairs,  it  had  already  been 
determined  in  England  to  incorporate  New  Hampshire  in 
the  new  crown  colony  of  New  England  that  was  being  formed. 
The  person  originaUy  selected  for  the  governorship   of 
Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire  was   Colonel  Percy 
Kirke,2  who  had  acquitted  himself  well  under  difficult  con- 
ditions at  Tangier.^     However  well  adapted  this  soldier^s 
"fierce  and  reckless  personality"  was  for  dealing  with  the 
Emperor  at  Fez,  it  rendered  him  unfit  for  the  New  England 
post.     Fortunately,  before  his  appointment  was  definitely 
made,  Charles  II  died,  and  the  ensuing  rebeUion  under  the 
lead  of  Monmouth  provided  other  activities  for  Kirke  and 
his  regiment  of  "Lambs."    This  uprising  aroused  some  futile 
hopes  in  Massachusetts  that  James  would  not  succeed  to 
the  throne,  and  that  then  the  charter  might  be  restored,* 
but  it  only  postponed  the  appointment  of  a  royal  executive. 
In  the  fall  of  1685,  it  was  decided  to  entrust  the  government 
of  Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire  to  Joseph  Dudley 
as  President  of  a  CouncH,  which  was  to  be  composed  in  the 

since  all  the  world  can  see  that  it  is  not  my  person  but  the  terms  of  my  com- 
mission that  they  cavil  at.'     C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  758-759- 

1  C.  C.  168S-1688,  pp.  41,  64.  He  was  subsequently,  in  1687,  appomted 
one  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  4!  per  cent  Revenue  there.  Treas.  Books, 
Out-Letters,  Customs  11,  f.  6. 

2  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  718,  719- 

3  Corbett,  England  in  the  Mediterranean  II,  pp.  120-126;   E.  M.  G. 

Routh,  Tangier,  pp.  201-207. 

4  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  95,  117.  During  the  interval,  the  old  charter  sys- 
tem with  Bradstreet  as  Governor  was  continued.  This  government  duly 
proclauned  James  II's  accession  to  the  throne.    lUd.  pp.  31,  32. 


t 


;ti' 


1    ) 


1 


i 


1 .1 


li 


II 


'II 


rt  I    ! 


ri 


324 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


main  of  prominent  colonials.  This  was  only  a  temporary 
expedient,  as  in  the  meanwhile  it  had  been  determined  in 
England  to  extend  the  process  of  unification  and  to  include 
in  the  new  province  Plymouth,  Rhode  Island,  and  Connect- 
icut. In  this  readjustment  and  in  this  plan,  Randolph  was 
the  moving  spirit.  He  had  opposed  the  appointment  of 
Kirke  and  had  favored  that  of  Dudley,  and  already  in  1681 
he  had  advocated  the  union  of  all  the  New  England  colonies 
in  one  government.^  The  legal  obstacles  to  this  scheme  were 
such  as  could  easily  be  surmounted.  Plymouth  did  not 
have  a  royal  charter  and  thus  could  readily  be  disposed  of, 
while  against  the  patents  of  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island 
a  sufficiently  good  case  could  be  made  to  convince  the  sub- 
servient courts  of  James  II  that  there  was  ample  ground  for 
their  cancellation.  Randolph  prepared  charges  against  these 
last  two  colonies,  on  the  strength  of  which  writs  of  quo  war- 
ranto were  issued.  Among  other  things,  Rhode  Island  was 
accused  of  making  laws  repugnant  to  those  of  England,  of 
denying  appeals  to  the  King,  and  of  violating  the  laws  of 
trade.  Connecticut  was  called  to  account  for  legislation 
contrary  to  that  of  England  and  for  denying  religious  lib- 
erty to  Anglicans.^ 

Although  Plymouth,  Rhode  Island,  and  Connecticut  were 
not  guilty  of  the  excesses  that  had  brought  about  the  rev- 
ocation of  the  Massachusetts  charter,^  the  obvious  advan- 

»  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  34-36. 

*  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  65 ;  Toppan,  Randolph  IV,  pp.  22,  23. 
'  In  1680,  Connecticut  had  made  due  provision  for  the  execution  of  the 
laws  of  trade.    In  this  connection,  the  Governor  wrote  to  the  Commis- 


THE  DOMINION  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 


32s 


tages  of  a  united  New  England  were  such  as  to  outweigh  in 
the  minds  of  EngHsh  statesmen  whatever  element  of  in- 
justice there  might  be  in  these  proceedings.  For  purposes 
of  offence  and  defence,  one  colony  was  far  more  effective 
than  four  separate  discordant  jurisdictions.  Moreover,  such 
an  arrangement  would  unquestionably  greatly  facihtate  the 
enforcement  of  the  laws  of  trade.  These  considerations 
would  have  appealed  to  any  statesman  with  a  broad  out- 
look, but  the  plan  naturally  found  especial  favor  in  the  days 
of  James  II,  when  the  influence  of  French  methods  of  ad- 
ministration was  at  its  zenith.  Like  the  measures  of  France, 
it  was  logical  to  the  core,  but  it  was  un-EngHsh  to  the  ex- 
tent that  it  disregarded  historic  continuity  and  destroyed 
local  institutions  and  liberties,  which  were  deeply  cherished 
by  the  peoples  who  had  lived  under  them.  There  is  this 
to  be  said,  however,  in  mitigation  of  this  criticism.  The 
people  of  New  England  were  in  general  a  homogeneous 
body,  divided  only  by  differences  of  creed,  which  then 
loomed  large,  but  were  by  no  means  fimdamental.  More- 
over, economically  New  England  was  a  unit,  of  which  Boston 
was  the  commercial  centre,  and  in  a  material  sense  it  could 
not  but  benefit  by  a  political  union  which  would  abolish  the 

sioners  of  the  Customs  that  hitherto  they  had  not  "arrived  at  any  capacitie 
soe  to  defrawde ;  for  though  we  may  not  boast  of  our  own  goodness,  yet 
penury  hath  hitherto  obstructed."  Conn.  Col.  Rec.  Ill,  pp.  49,  307-309* 
The  Governor  of  Rhode  Island  also  took  the  oath  to  obey  the  laws  of  trade, 
and  in  1682  a  naval  oflSce  was  created  in  the  colony  to  secure  their  execu- 
tion. R.  I.  Col.  Rec.  Ill,  pp.  108-110,  119.  At  about  this  time  also,  Ran- 
dolph wrote  that,  though  treated  with  great  disrespect  in  Massachusetts, 
he  was  accorded  due  consideration  in  the  other  New  England  colonies. 
C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  544,  545 ;  Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  70-73. 


Lv. 


326 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


artificial  boundary  lines  that  somewhat  interfered  with  the 
freedom  of  exchanges. 

New  Plymouth's  chief  products^  were  fish  and  provisions 
of  all  sorts  —  beef,  pork,  mutton,  and  some  grain. ^  The  col- 
ony had  no  large  vessels  and  no  trade  beyond  the  seas.  A 
few  small  boats  were  employed  in  the  fishery  and  in  carrying 
the  colony's  surplus  produce  to  Boston,  whence  it  was  trans- 
ported to  market.  Boston  was  the  colony's  entrepot,  "  Com- 
odities  Imported  from  beyond  Sea  wee  haue  none  to  us 
directly,"  wrote  Governor  Winslow  in  1680,  "but  haue  all 
our  Supplies  from  our  Neighbours  of  the  Massachusets." 
Similarly,  the  exports  and  imports  of  Rhode  Island  were  in- 
considerable.' According  to  Governor  Sanford's  statement 
made  in  1680,  there  were  no  merchants  in  Rhode  Island, 
"but  the  most  of  our  Colloney  live  comfortably  by  improv- 
inge  the  wildemesse."  With  the  exception  of  a  few  sloops, 
the  colony  had  no  shipping,  nor  was  there  any  trade  with 
foreigners  or  Indians.  Its  chief  exports  were  horses  and  pro- 
visions, and  its  main  imports  consisted  of  a  small  quantity  of 
West  Indian  goods  for  local  consumption.  Connecticut  was 
also  essentially  an  agricultural  community,  raising  wheat, 
com  and  other  grains,  peas,  pork,  beef,  horses,  and  lum- 
ber, which  were  for  the  most  part  transported  to  Boston 

1  See  Governor  Winslow's  answers  to  the  queries  of  1680.  C.  O.  1/44, 
55  i;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  522,  523. 

*  In  addition,  the  colony  raised  horses  and  cows,  and  produced  some 
ship-timber,  tar,  hemp,  and  flax. 

'  See  Governor  Pel  eg  Sanford's  answers  to  the  queries  of  1680.  C.  O. 
1/44,  58  i;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  523,  524;  A.  B.  Hart,  Am.  Hist,  told  by 
Contemporaries  I,  pp.  407-409. 


^i 


1 1 1 


)r 


THE  DOMINION  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 


327 


and  there  exchanged  for  clothing.^  Some  also  were  shipped 
to  New  York.  This  constituted  the  bulk  of  the  colony's 
commerce,  but,  in  addition,  there  was  a  small  direct  export 
trade  to  the  West  Indies  and  occasionally  a  ship  took  a 
cargo  to  the  Madeiras.^ 

The  provisions  thus  obtained  from  the  neighboring  colo- 
nies constituted  an  important  factor  in  Boston's  trade.^ 
However  much  Massachusetts  might  object  to  the  provin- 
cial form  of  government,  the  unification  of  New  England  in 
itself  was  eagerly  welcomed  there.  In  1686,  the  President 
and  Council  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  supporting  this 
policy  and  stating  that  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island  *have 
always  been  nourished  by  us,  and  they  depend  on  us  not 
only  for  supplies,  but  for  manufactures  of  all  kinds,  so  that 
to  divide  them  from  us  to  lay  restraint  on  trade  would  be 
ruinous  to  aU.'  ^ 

In  May  of  1686,^  Randolph  arrived  in  Boston  with  in- 
structions to  serve  the  legal  papers  in  the  suits  against 

^  See  Governor  William  Leete's  answers  of  1680.  Conn.  Col.  Rec.  III. 
pp.  294-301 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  576-578. 

2  See  also  Governor  Leete's  letter  of  1681.    Conn.  Col.  Rec.  Ill,  pp.  308, 

309- 

»In  1687,  Andros  reported  that  Massachusetts  could  not  carry  on  its 

trade  without  these  provisions  from  Connecticut.     C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  350. 

See  also  Dongan's  statements.    Ihid.  pp.  329,  370,  371 ;  C.  C.  1699,  p.  604. 

*  C.  C.  168 5-1688,  p.  261.  At  the  same  time,  Dudley  wrote  to  Blath- 
wayt  praying  for  the  annexation  of  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut,  as 
these  "are  the  Principal!  parts  of  the  Countrey  whose  Come  and  Cattle  are 
raised  for  the  supply  of  the  Great  Trade  of  fishing  and  Other  shipping 
belonging  to  this  his  Majestyes  Territory."  Goodrick,  Randolph  VI,  p. 
196. 

^  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  188 ;  Toppan,  Randolph  IV,  pp.  49,  50. 


^«K' 


]W 


:  I 


^ 


I 


I  » 


i 


,; 


I 


328 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut  and  to  organize  the  provi- 
sional government,  which  was  to  replace  that  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts Bay  Company.  Randolph  himself  had  been  ap- 
pointed Secretary  of  the  new  government  and  also  one  of 
the  Council.^  In  addition,  he  had  also  secured  for  himself 
some  other  posts,^  and  likewise  continued  to  be  the  Collector 
of  the  Customs.  Joseph  Dudley  and  the  Council  were  in- 
stalled in  office  without  any  opposition,  except  that  a  pro- 
test was  lodged  against  the  lack  of  an  assembly.'  Although 
Randolph  had  been  Dudley's  sponsor,*  he  quickly  became 
dissatisfied,  mainly  because  in  his  opinion  the  new  govern- 
ment neither  sufficiently  furthered  the  interests  of  Angli- 
canism, nor  adequately  supported  him  in  enforcing  the  laws 
of  trade. 

For  approximately  three  years  Randolph  had  been  able 
to  pay  only  slight  attention  to  his  duties  as  Collector,  since 
his  time  had  been  fully  taken  up  with  the  legal  proceedings 
against  the  New  England  charters.  On  his  departure  from 
Massachusetts  in  1683,  he  had  delegated  his  authority  to 
his  brother  Bernard.  But  the  deputy  fared  no  better  than 
the  chief.  According  to  Governor  Cranfield,  Bernard  Ran- 
dolph was  'daily  affronted  and  abused.'  In  despair  of 
being  able  to  accompUsh  anything,  after  a  few  months  he 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  718,  719.  In  1687,  Randolph  leased  his  office  of 
Secretary  for  £150  yearly.     C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  364. 

2  Randolph  was  appointed  Surveyor  of  the  Woods  in  Maine  with  a 
salary  of  £50  payable  by  the  Treasurer  of  the  Navy,  and  also  Deputy- 
Postmaster  in  New  England.  Toppan,  Randolph  IV,  pp.  58,  59,  67,  68,  71 ; 
C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  120. 

'  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  200.  *  Ibid.  pp.  77,  87,  88. 


THE  DOMINION  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 


329 


decided  to  go  to  England  to  complain.^  Early  in  1684, 
when  he  was  about  to  depart,  he  was  arrested  in  suits  for 
damages  caused  by  his  acts  in  trying  to  enforce  the  laws,^ 
and  shortly  thereafter  he  died.^  At  about  this  time  William 
Dyre,  who  had  been  appointed  in  1683  Surveyor  General  of 
the  Customs,  came  to  New  England.  His  activities  were, 
however,  chiefly  confined  to  suppressing  the  pirates  who 
were  disposing  of  their  spoils  there.^  Thus,  until  Randolph's 
reassumption  of  his  duties  in  1686,  the  administration  of 
the  laws  was  mainly  in  the  hands  of  local  authorities.  Gov- 
ernor Bradstreet  apparently  did  his  utmost  to  enforce  them,^ 
but  the  task  was  one  of  great  diflSculty.^  Accordingly, 
when  Randolph  returned  to  Massachusetts  in  1686,  new 
instruments  were  provided  for  suppressmg  the  illegal 
traders.  It  was  determined  to  erect  an  admiralty  court 
and  to  station  a  frigate  in  Massachusetts  to  assist  the  cus- 

*  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  449,  450,  460;  Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  249, 
250. 

2  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  607. 

» Ibid.  p.  634.  When  reporting  Bernard  Randolph's  death.  Governor 
Cranfield  of  New  Hampshire  wrote  that  this  vacancy  should  be  filled,  as 
he  had  himself  observed  that  Canary  wines  and  French  commodities  were 
more  plentiful  than  ever  in  Boston.    Ibid. 

*  Ibid.  pp.  678,  680,  681,  684H586. 
^  Toppan,  Randolph  III,  p.  340. 

^  Cf.  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  669.  In  1684,  Randolph  wrote  to  Bradstreet 
about  a  trader  who  had  shipped  tobacco  directly  from  Virginia  to  Glasgow. 
After  selhng  the  tobacco,  he  proceeded  to  Rotterdam,  where  he  was  secur- 
ing a  cargo  for  direct  shipment  to  Boston.  In  reply,  Bradstreet  wrote  that 
this  trader  had  arrived  with  a  clearing  from  Whitehaven  in  England,  "which 
I  could  not  disproue,  but  doubt  whether  ever  hee  came  there  or  not." 
Toppan,  Randolph  III,  pp.  323,  336-341. 


iV-' 


'■* 


(i 


ii; 


n 


I? 


4 


' 


i 


i 


330 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


toms  officials.  Such  agencies  had  already  been  effectively 
employed  for  this  purpose  in  the  West  Indies. 

As  in  the  case  of  the  other  colonial  executives  appointed  by 
the  Crown,  Joseph  Dudley  was  commissioned  Vice- Admiral;  ^ 
and,  in  addition,  a  court  of  this  nature  was  established  and 
a  judge,  registrar,  and  marshal  were  appointed  to  serve  in  it.^ 
It  was  expected  that  this  tribunal,  which  acted  without 
juries,  would  be  free  from  the  local  prejudices  of  the  colonial 
courts  and  would  condemn  all  legitimate  seizures  made  by 
the  customs  officials.^  In  1685,  Randolph  had  also  urged 
the  necessity  of  employing  a  ship  of  the  navy  against  the 
smugglers.^  Accordingly,  Captain  George  of  H.M.S.  Rose, 
which  brought  Randolph  to  Boston,  was  ordered  to  remain 
on  that  station. 

Under  these  new  arrangements,  the  laws  were  more 
effectively  enforced  than  ever  before.  During  the  year 
1686  a  number  of  seizures  were  condemned,  mainly  in  the 
Admiralty  Court.^  The  administrative  system  did  not, 
however,  work  smoothly.  Randolph  complained  that  Cap- 
tain George  was  exceeding  his  authority  in  seizing  vessels 

1  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Proc.  Series  II,  XIII,  p.  228. 

«  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  119. 

«  The  Vice-Admiralty  Court  sat  for  the  first  time  on  July  5,  1686.  Sew- 
all's  Letter-Book,  in  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.  Series  VI,  I,  p.  34. 

*  Toppan,  Randolph  IV,  p.  48. 

^  The  total  value  of  six  seizures  and  condemnations  reported  was  £865. 
C.  0.  1/61,  21  i.  In  the  case  of  one  of  these  seizures,  which  had  imported 
Scottish  goods,  Randolph  wrote  to  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  that 
the  master  had  secured  fraudulent  certificates  from  some  of  the  English 
customs  officials.  Toppan,  Randolph  IV,  p.  112.  For  further  details  of 
some  of  these  cases,  set  Goodrick,  Randolph  VI,  pp.  183-185. 


THE  DOMINION  OF  NEW  ENGLAND  331 

in  port,  thus  depriving  the  Collector  of  the  share  of  con- 
demnations to  which  he  was  entitled.^  Although  Dudley 
and  his  Council  were  naturally  pursuing  a  conciliatory  policy 
towards  their  countrymen,  they  fuUy  realized  that  any  neg- 
lect on  their  part  to  enforce  the  laws  of  trade  would  react 
grievously  on  Massachusetts  and  evidently  in  full  sincerity 
endeavored  to  enforce  them.^  But  Randolph,  who  was 
described  at  the  time  as  "a  Person  generaUy  hated  by  the 
Bostonians, "  3  encountered  personal  opposition  that  could 
not  be  overcome;  and,  moreover,  he  was  annoyed  because 
Dudley  would  not  support  him  in  his  quarrels  with  Captain 
George.^  He  accordingly  complained  to  England,  stating 
that  a  governor  general  was  much  needed  and  that  delay 
in  this  matter  was  prejudicial.^  Already  in  June  of  1686, 
Sir  Edmund  Andros  had  been  commissioned  Governor  of 
New  England,  but  it  was  only  in  December  that  he  arrived 
in  America.    In  the  meanwhile,  Randolph  had  served  the 

1  Toppan,  Randolph  IV,  pp.  91-93,  97-100,  126-128;  Goodrick,  Ran- 
dolph VI,  pp.  183,  184,  186,  187. 

2  Dudley  and  the  Council  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade:  "Wee  are  also 
preparing  strict  methods,  for  the  pursuance  of  the  Acts  of  trade  and  navi- 
gation, in  every  Port  of  this  Governm* "  Toppan,  Randolph  IV,  pp. 
80-82.    See  also  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  260-262. 

» John  Dunton's  Letters  from  New  England  in  1686  (W.  H.  Whitmore 
ed.  for  Prince  Soc),  p.  137.  Randolph  himself  wrote:  'I  am  accounted 
by  aU  to  be  the  sole  enemy  of  the  country,  having  served  the  King  here 
eleven  years,  and  taken  the  writs  to  the  other  colonies.'  C.  C.  1685-1688, 
pp.  222,  223. 

*  Toppan,  Randolph  IV,  pp.  91-93 ;  Goodrick,  Randolph  VI,  pp.  187- 
189. 

'  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  222,  223,  230,  231,  658,  659;  Toppan,  Randolph 
IV,  pp.  H6-118. 


Hi 


>  I        . )  ' 


I 


i 


•t 


Hi 


332 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


quo  warranto  writs  on  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut. 
The  former  had  submitted  already  in  July ;  ^  Connecticut 
was  not  so  pliable,  but  on  seeing  that  the  EngUsh  govern- 
ment was  determined  and  fearing  that  resistance  might 
lead  to  its  annexation  to  New  York,  likewise  surrendered 
somewhat  less  than  a  year  later.^  Thus  in  the  autumn  of 
1687  Andros  was  at  the  head  of  a  government  comprising 
all  the  New  England  colonies. 

Andros  was  a  soldier  of  excellent  reputation,  who  had 
made  a  satisfactory  record  as  Governor  of  New  York.     He 
was  empowered  to  impose  taxes  and  to  legislate  with  the 
ad\ice  of  the  Council,  and  his  salary  of  £1200  was  to  be 
paid  by  the  Enghsh  Exchequer  until  a  revenue  should  be 
estabUshed  in  New  England.^     Although  the  Council  was 
composed  of  the  leading  men  of  each  colony,  the  contrast 
between  the  new  system  and  that  which  had  prevailed 
under  the  charters  was  a  striking  one.    The  absence  of  a 
legislature  could  not  but  be  deemed  a  serious  grievance  by 
men  accustomed  to  seK-govemment.    An  appointed  Coun- 
cil, no  matter  how  representative,  could  not  take  the  place 
of  an  elected  assembly ;  and,  moreover,  Andros  dominated 
and,  occasionally,  even  overrode  this  body.     Although  no 
attempt  was  made  at  the  time  to  dispense  with  the  popu- 
larly elected  legislatures  in  Virginia,  Jamaica,  Barbados,  and 
the  other  crown  colonies,  James's  treatment  of  his  own  pro- 

iC.  C.   1685-1688,  pp.  211,  217;  Goodrick,  Randolph  VI,  pp.  190, 

196. 

2  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  198,  i99i  205,  206,  215,  222,  350,  364,  365,  383* 

387 ;   Goodrick,  Randolph  VI,  pp.  233,  234. 

3  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  203,  242 ;  Blathwayt,  Journal  I,  f.  199. 


THE  DOMINION  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 


333 


prietar>^  province  of  New  York  naturally  led  to  the  infer- 
ence that  this  was  to  be  a  permanent  arrangement  in  New 
England.  At  the  present  day,  there  may  be  some  legiti- 
mate doubt  on  this  point,  but  contemporaries  in  the  colo- 
nies affected  inevitably  regarded  this  proconsular  system 
not  as  a  temporary  expedient,  but  as  an  expression  of 
James  II's  absolute  theories  of  government.  The  slightest 
uncertainty  about  so  vital  a  subject  was  sufficient  to  arouse 
misgivings  and  unrest  in  a  people  so  jealous  of  their  hber- 
ties  as  were  the  New  Englanders.  Whether  Andros's  gov- 
ernment were  benevolent  or  tyrannical  mattered  little; 
under  no  circumstances  could  it  find  favor  in  the  eyes  of  a 
people  to  whom  its  autocratic  form  was  abhorrent. 

In  practice,  the  administration  and  legislation  of  Andros 
was  not  oppressive.  The  old  system  of  taxation  in  Massa- 
chusetts was  continued,  and,  although  a  larger  revenue  was 
anticipated,  it  was  but  trifling  in  comparison  with  the 
colony's  wealth  and  population.^  Naturally,  the  laws  of 
trade  and  navigation  were  more  effectively  enforced,  as 
the  means  of  obstruction  had  been  considerably  lessened.^ 

*  Cf.  P.  C.  Cal.  II,  pp.  104,  105;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  422,  464. 

*  In  1690,  it  was  said  that  under  Andros  these  laws  "were  carefully  in- 
forced,  and  their  constant  and  profitable  correspondence  with  Foreigners 
and  Pyrats  diligently  obstructed."  John  Palmer,  An  Impartial  Account 
of  the  State  of  New  England  (London,  1690),  in  Andros  Tracts  I,  p.  41. 
See  also  Andros  Records  in  Am.  Antiqu.  Soc,  New  Series  XIII,  pp.  242,  249, 
464,  467;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  311,  350.  In  1687,  the  Commissioners  of 
the  Customs  wrote  to  Andros  that  they  had  been  frequently  informed  by 
their  agent  in  Scotland  that  several  vessels  with  enumerated  goods  came 
there  directly  from  the  colonies,  "being  generally  shipps  that  pretend  to 
belong  to  and  give  Bond  in  the  Plantacons,  which  are  plaine  instances  of 


.1 


I! 


*l 


i 


334 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


The  carefully  prepared  and  detailed  accounts  of  the  entries 
of  ships  inwards  and  outwards  at  Boston,  which  date  from 
Randolph's  return  in  1686  and  were  continued  under  An- 
dros,  are  in  themselves  a  concrete  evidence  of  the  vastly 
greater  respect  paid  to  these  laws.^  More  disturbing  than 
anything  else  was  Andros's  land  policy,  which  threw  grave 
doubts  on  the  validity  of  a  large  number  of  titles.    Al- 

the  great  neglect  or  corruption  of  the  officers  employed  in  executing  the 
laws."  Andros  was  instructed  to  be  very  careful  that  all  ships  not  pro- 
ducing certificates  of  having  given  bond  in  England  should  give  bond  in 
the  colonies  and  that  such  colonial  bonds  should  be  cancelled  only  by 
certificates  to  the  effect  that  the  goods  had  been  landed  in  England.  Top- 
pan,  Randolph  IV,  pp.  145-147. 

»  C.  0.  5/848.  Of  these  accounts,  numbers  i  to  5  cover  roughly  the  first 
five  of  the  seven  months  of  Dudley's  presidency.  Sixty-two  vessels  of 
from  4  to  120  tons  arrived  from  the  other  colonies  with  small  quantities  of 
sugar,  tobacco,  cotton,  etc.  Twenty-nine  ships,  of  which  14  were  EngHsh 
of  1040  tons  and  15  were  colonial  of  895  tons,  came  from  other  places,  in 
which  was  included  Newfoundland,  whence  came  3  vessels.  Seventeen 
ships  came  from  England.  During  the  same  period,  there  left  Boston  23 
ships  bound  for  England  and  Europe;  of  these,  15  of  780  tons  were  colonial, 
and  8  of  720  tons  were  EngHsh.  Six  were  bound  for  London  with  sugar, 
molasses,  nun,  dyeing-wood,  skins,  oil,  fish,  and  lumber;  seven  sailed  for 
Newfoundland  with  sugar,  molasses,  rum,  lumber,  and  provisions ;  and  ten 
carried  fish  to  Spain.  The  total  exports  of  the  products  of  the  other  colonies, 
except  molasses,  were  not  large :  sugar,  339  hogsheads,  18  tierces,  7  barrels ; 
molasses,  147 1  hogsheads,  6  tierces;  rum,  12  hogsheads;  dyeing- wood,  55 
tons.  Of  skins  exported,  there  were  35  hogsheads  and  2  barrels ;  of  oil,  41 
tierces  and  57  barrels.  The  account  of  goods  exported  to  the  other  colonies 
gives  details  regarding  70  ships  of  2036  tons,  of  which  apparently  all  were 
colonial,  except  one  EngUsh  vessel  of  140  tons.  Included  in  this  list  were 
2  ships  with  lumber  and  oil  for  the  Madeiras  and  one  with  fish  for  the 
Canaries.  Of  these  vessels,  9  were  bound  for  Virginia  with  provisions,  salt, 
lumber,  oil,  fish,  a  small  quantity  of  English  manufactures,  and  also  some 
sugar,  molasses,  nun,  and  ginger.  The  majority  of  these  70  ships  took 
lumber,  fish,  horses,  and  provisions  to  the  West  Indies. 


THE  DOMINION  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 


335 


though  actually  but  few  individuals  were  disturbed  in  their 
possessions,  yet  the  uncertainty  caused  by  the  legal  proceed- 
ings kept  the  colony  in  a  ferment  of  unrest  and  excitement. 
The  plans  of  the  government  of   James   II  were   of   a 
far  wider  scope  than  the  mere  unification  of  New  England. 
In  the  first  place,  it  was  proposed  to  annul  all  the  colonial 
charters.    In  1685,  the  Lords  of  Trade  reported  that  it  was 
"of   very  Great  &  Growing  Prejudice  to  Yo'  Ma^     Af- 
faires in  y'  Plantacons  &  to  yo"^  Customs  here  that  such 
independent    Govern?  be   kept   up  &   maintained   w%ut 
a   nearer   &  more  Imediate  Dependance   on  yo'  Ma'^"  * 
The  fundamental  cause  of  this  movement  was  the  diffi- 
culty that  had  been  experienced  in  enforcing  the  laws  of 
trade  in  these  independent  jurisdictions.^    In  consequence 
of  complaints  of  this  nature  received  from  Maryland,  on 
July  10,  1685,  the  Privy  Council  instructed  the  Attorney- 
General  to  bring  suit  against  Lord   Baltimore's   patent.^ 
Complaints  had  also  been  received  from  New  York  that  its 
trade  had  suffered  severely  by  the  separation  from  it  of  the 
Jerseys  and  Delaware,  and  accordingly  a  week  later,  at 
the  same  time  that  the  proceedings  against  Connecticut 
and  Rhode  Island  were  instituted,  writs  of  quo  warranto 
were  also  ordered  to  be  issued  against  the  charters  of  these 
colonies.*    A  few  months  after  the  issue  of  this  order,  the 

1  C.  O.  324/4,  f-  230.  .         .      ^       r 

« See  for  Maryland,  ante,  Chapter  VIII,  and  for  the  Carohnas,  ante, 

Chapter  IX. 

3  P.  C.  Cal.  II,  p.  88. 

*  C.  O.  324/4,  f.  230;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  m,  p.  361 ;  P-  C.  Cal.  II,  p.  88; 
C.  C.  168s- 1688,  pp.  42,  65,  67,  73 ;  Toppan,  Randolph  IV,  pp.  26-28. 


Jtil 


it 


I, 


fk 


III 

'  ) 
I  ■ 

tii  i 

I 


m^ 


m 


1  il    ! 


1 


336 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


government  received  a  letter  from  William  Dyre,  the  Sur- 
veyor General  of  the  Customs  in  America,  complaining  that 
he  had  been  arrested  in  East  New  Jersey  as  a  consequence 
of  refusing  to  pay  the  costs  of  the  trial  of  a  vessel  seized 
by  him  and  then  unjustly  freed  on  trial  by  a  jury.^    As  a 
result,  the  Privy  Council  renewed  its  instructions  to  the 
Attorney-General  to  begin  suit  against  the  charter  of  that 
colony. 2     The  following  year,  1686,  the  prosecution  of  all 
these  outstanding  writs  of  quo  warranto  was  again  ordered,^ 
and  also  the  institution  of  suits  against  the  patents  for 
Pennsylvania,  the  CaroUnas,  and  the  Bahamas.^    Thus,  at 
this  time  preparations  were  made  to  abrogate  every  one  of 
the  existing  colonial  charters.    The  EngHsh  legal  processes 
were,  however,  exceedingly  dilatory,  and  but  little  came  of 
this  comprehensive  movement.     The  charters  of  Carolina, 
Maryland,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  and  the  Bahamas  were 
still  intact  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution  of  1688/9.    On 
the  other  hand,  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut  had  sub- 
mitted, and  the  writs  had  also  been  served  on  the  proprie- 
tors of  the  Jerseys,^  who  had  surrendered  their  questionable 
rights  of  government.^    Had  all  the  suits  been  carried  to  a 
successful  conclusion,  the  English  government  would  have 
been  enabled  to  consolidate  the  continental  colonies  in  two 
distinct  pohtical  entities  with  Virginia  and  Massachusetts 

1  C.  C.  1681-1685,  PP-  61,  106;  P.  c.  Cal.  II,  p.  89. 

2  p.  C.  Cal.  II,  p.  89. 

^Ibid.  p.  88;   C.  O.  s/723,  f.  109;   C.  O.  324/4,  ff.  233,  240. 
*P.  C.  Cal.  II,  p.  92;   C.  O.  5/723,  ff.  109,  no;  No.  Ca.  Col.  Rec.  I, 
PP-  352-354. 

'  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  77.  « Ibid.  pp.  526,  542. 


THE  DOMINION  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 


337 


as  their  respective  centres.  That  some  idea  of  this  nature 
was  entertained,  if  only  vaguely,  may  be  surmised  from 
what  was  done  with  the  northern  colonies. 

In  1688,^  a  new  commission  was  issued  to  Andros  includ- 
ing within  "the  Dominion  of  New  England"  both  New  York 
and  the  Jerseys.^  At  the  same  time.  Captain  Francis  Nich- 
olson was  appointed  Lieutenant-Governor.^  The  main 
purpose  of  this  short-lived  consolidation  was  to  increase 
the  military  efficiency  of  the  colonies,^  as  the  French  and 
Indian  situation  was  becoming  daily  more  threatening.^ 
But  before  its  efficacy  in  this  respect  could  be  tested,  the 
Dominion  of  New  England,  after  an  existence  of  only  a  few 
months,  fell  to  pieces  in  the  turmoil  and  confusion  caused 
by  the  EngHsh  Revolution  of  1688/9.  Such  an  artificial 
union  was  bound  to  be  short-lived.  The  middle  colonies 
differed  so  fundamentally  from  those  in  New  England  that 
no  other  outcome  was  possible. 

Of  the  colonies  situated  between  Virginia  and  Maryland 
to  the  South  and  New  England  to  the  North,  only  New  York 
had  at  this  time  any  commercial  importance.  But  even 
this  possession  was  from  the  imperial  standpoint  insignifi- 
cant, when  compared  with  the  tobacco  and  sugar  colonies. 

1  Ibid.  pp.  525,  526;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  536,  537. 

^  Andres's  salary  was  raised  to  £1400.  Blathwayt,  Journal  I,  f.  296 ; 
C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  560.  3  c.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  533. 

*  Blathwayt  wrote  to  Randolph  that  such  a  consoHdation  of  the  colonies, 
"besides  other  advantages,  will  be  terrible  to  the  French  and  make  them 
proceed  with  more  caution  than  they  have  lately  done."  Toppan,  Ran- 
dolph IV,  pp.  216-218. 

^  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  352,  353,  588-592. 

2  (2) 


11 


I  I 


M 


li 


'. 


^\ 


(; 


338 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Although  the  process  of  settlement  in  Pennsylvania  was 
proceeding  at  an  exceptionally  rapid  pace/  Penn's  "holy 
experiment''  had  naturally  so  far  not  been  able  to  do  more 
than  demonstrate  its  prospective  future  worth,  since  the 
charter  had  been  issued  only  in  1681.^  The  Jerseys,  it  is 
true,  were  of  older  date,  and  their  great  agricultural  re- 
sources had  already  been  more  than  tapped.^  But  the 
trade  of  these  sparse  and  scattered  settlements  and  their 
demand  for  foreign  supplies  was  insignificant.  In  1687, 
Governor  Dongan  of  New  York  wrote  to  the  Lords  of 
Trade  that  last  year  two  or  three  ships  had  come  to  East 
Jersey  with  merchandise,  which  unquestionably  was  then 
smuggled  into  New  York,  as  he  was  'sure  that  East  Jersey 

*  The  immigration  into  Pennsylvania  was  abnormally  large,  and  there 
had  already  been  established  trade  relations  with  Barbados.  A.  C.  Myers, 
Narratives  of  Early  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  pp.  229,  253,  260,  287,  290,  291,  293. 
Already  in  1684,  a  ship  was  condemned  in  Philadelphia  on  the  ground  that 
it  was  a  French  bottom  and  as  such  not  allowed  to  trade.  Pa.  Col.  Rec, 
Council  1683-1700,  I,  pp.  122,  123.  According  to  the  English  Treasury 
Records,  a  Scottish  vessel  had  been  condemned  by  the  Governor  and 
Coimcil  of  Pennsylvania  in  1683.    Treas.  Books,  Out-Letters,  Customs  10, 

ff.  177,  178. 

2  Careful  provision  was  made  in  the  charter  to  obviate  the  difficulties 
that  had  been  encountered  in  enforcing  the  laws  of  trade  in  the  other  colonies 
of  this  general  type.  The  patentee  was  obliged  to  admit  all  officials  ap- 
pointed by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  and  to  appoint  an  attorney 
or  agent  in  London  to  answer  for  "any  wilfull  default  or  neglect  permitted 
by  the  said  WilHam  Penn,  his  heirs  or  assignes  against  our  Lawes  of  Trade 
or  Navigacon."  Pa.  Col.  Records,  Council  1 683-1 700,  I,  pp.  22,  23.  See 
also  C.  C.  1681-1685,  p.  3. 

3  A  Further  Account  of  New  Jersey  (London,  1676),  pp.  2,  6-8;  C.  C. 
1669-1674,  pp.  44,  45 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  p.  182 ;  A.  C.  Myers,  Narra- 
tives of  Early  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  pp.  191,  192. 


THE  DOMINION  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 


339 


and  West  Jersey  together  cannot  consume  over  £1000  worth 
of  goods  in  two  years.'  ^  In  comparison  with  its  southern 
neighbors,  New  York  was  ahready  a  considerable  commer- 
cial centre. 

The  settlement  of  the  Dutch  in  this  region  had  from  the 
very  outset  been  resented  by  the  English,  who  claimed  as 
their  own  the  entire  Atlantic  coast  from  Canada  to  Florida. 
Prior  to  the  Restoration  no  consistent  attempts  had  been 
made  to  render  these  claims  effective,  but  after  1660  they 
were  renewed  and  enforced,  because  the  presence  of  these 
Dutch  settlements  in  the  very  midst  of  the  EngHsh  domin- 
ions was  found  increasingly  inconvenient.  New  Nether- 
land  separated  the  territorial  continuity  of  the  English 
colonies,  interfered  with  their  future  expansion,  and  com- 
plicated the  question  of  defence.  Its  conquest  would  mean 
a  return  to  the  conditions  of  1606,  when  James  I  granted 
the  entire  Atlantic  seaboard  to  Virginia  and  New  England.^ 
Moreover,  and  this  was  the  fundamental  motive,  the  prox- 
imity of  the  Dutch  to  the  English  colonies  facilitated  illegal 
trade  and  rendered  it  far  more  difficult  to  put  into  effect 
the  colonial  system. 

In  1662,  the  Council  for  Foreign  Plantations  took  under 

^  C.  C.  1 68 5-1 688,  p.  327.  This  statement  is  presumably  an  under- 
estimate. 

^  In  the  fall  of  1664,  shortly  after  the  conquest  of  New  Netherland, 
Samuel  Maverick  wrote  to  John  Winthrop,  Jr. :  "  So  that  now,  thourough 
Gods  mercey,  the  two  Colloneyes,  Virginia  and  New  England,  are  once  more 
intirely  ioyned  together  vnder  the  Gk)uemment  of  our  soueraigne  lord  the 
Kinge,  and  vnder  him  his  royall  highness  the  Duke  of  York."  Winthrop 
Papers  II,  p.  310. 


"T^ 


«k 


Ht^^m 


i^Mfl 


i\ 


i 


\ 


»t . 


M' 


nil 


340 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


its  consideration  some  information  that  had  been  received  of 
a  secret  trade  in  tobacco  between  the  Dutch  and  English 
colonies,  "as  namely  by  delivering  the  same  at  sea,  by  carry- 
ing the  same  to  New  England  and  other  Plantacons  and 
thence  shipping  the  same  in  Dutch  bottoms,"  and  also  by 
taking  it  to  the  Dutch  settlements  in  Delaware  Bay.  Lord 
Baltimore  was  summoned  before  the  Council,  and  prom- 
ised to  instruct  his  deputy  in  Maryland  to  put  a  stop  to 
such  practices.^  In  1663,  the  Privy  Council  wrote  to  the 
colonial  Governors  about  this  direct  trade  to  the  Dutch 
settlements  and  ordered  them  strictly  to  enforce  the  Act 
of  Navigation.^  At  the  same  time,  in  connection  wath  a 
complaint  against  the  Dutch  intrusion  at  New  Netherland 
and  Long  Island,  which  it  was  claimed  belonged  to  England, 
attention  was  again  directed  to  this  intercourse  as  in  great 
part  frustratiag  the  'good  intention'  of  the  laws  regulating 
English  colonial  trade.^  During  the  ensuing  investigation, 
the  Farmers  of  the  Customs  stated  that  the  ships  trading 
to  the  English  colonies  "doe  both  by  land  &  water  carry  & 
convey  greate  quantities  of  Tobacco  to  the  Dutch  whose 
Plantations  are  contiguous,  the  Custom  whereof  would 
amount  to  tenne  thousand  pounds  p,  ann.  or  upwards."  * 
As  a  remedy,  it  was  proposed  that  the  Farmers  of  the  Cus- 
toms should  establish  officials  in  the  colonies  to  prevent  such 
illegal  trading;  ^  but,  while  this  proposal  was  being  debated, 

^  C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  34S,  357 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  p.  44. 
2  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  44-46.  ^  C.  O.  1/14,  59,  f.  53. 

*  Ihid.  ff.  S3,  54 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  p.  47 ;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  597. 
'^  C.  O.  1/14,  59  ff.  54-56;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  m,  pp.  48-50;  C.  C.  1661- 
1668,  nos.  605,  644,  649. 


THE  DOMINION  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 


341 


the  international  situation  had  become  critical,  and  war 
between  England  and  Holland  was  imminent. 

According  to  the   prevaiHng  international  practice,  the 
Dutch  had  acquired  an  unquestionably  vaHd  title  to  New 
Netherland  from  their  long  occupation  of  this  region.     Eng- 
land's insistence  on  her  strictly  formal  legal  rights  was  as 
untenable  as  was  the  Dutch  claim  to  a  monopoly  of  the 
trade  of  West  Africa.    But  while  the  Restoration  govern- 
ment did  not  disturb  New  Netherland,  the  Dutch  were 
forcibly  driving  the  English  slave-traders  from  the  Guinea 
coast.     In  retaliation  for  these  unwarranted  aggressions  in 
Africa,  England  determined  to  attack  the  Dutch  settlements 
in  America.^     War  was  not  formally  declared,  nor  was  such 
notification  required  by  international  usage;  for,  until  the 
nineteenth  century,  nations  were  frequently  engaged  in  pro- 
tracted hostilities,  while  theoretically  stiU  at  peace.     Early  in 
1664,  Charles  II  granted  to  his  brother,  the  Duke  of  York, 
the  Dutch  territories  in  North  America,^  and  at  the  same 
time  the  Commissioners,  who  were  being  sent  to  New  Eng- 
land, were  instructed  to  reduce  these  settlements.^    In  the 
summer  of  1664,  Colonel  Richard  NicoUs  appeared  with  a 
small  force  before  New  Amsterdam,  which,  being  totally  un- 
prepared for  resistance,  surrendered.*     Shortly  thereafter, 
the  Dutch  settlements  on  the  Delaware  were  also  reduced.^ 

1  See  especiaUy  H.  L.  Schoolcraft,  The  Capture  of  New  Amsterdam,  in 
English  Historical  Review  XXII,  pp.  687  et  seq. 

2  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  685. 

^Ihid.  nos.  711,  713;  Mass.  Col.  Rec.  IV,  Part  II,  p.  117. 

*  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  788. 

^  Ihid.  no.  809;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  p.  69. 


'II  II 


Id 


I' 


m 


''jli 


tj 


n 


I 


i    < 


!■  I 


342 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


The  Treaty  of  Breda  of  1667,  which  brought  to  an  end  the 
formal  war  that  followed  upon  these  proceedings,  conceded 
to  England  these  regions,  and  thus  came  into  being  the 
English  colony  of  New  York. 

As  New  York  was  now  an  EngHsh  colony,  the  Dutch  mer- 
chants could  no  longer  trade  there.^  The  ensuing  dislocation 
for  the  time  being  naturally  led  to  considerable  inconven- 
ience. The  late  Dutch  Governor,  Peter  Stuyvesant,  insisted 
that  the  colony  would  be  ruined  unless  trade  were  allowed 
with  Holland,  since  not  only  could  its  suppHes  be  secured 
more  cheaply  there,  but  as  yet  no  other  commercial  arrange- 
ments had  been  made.  He  further  pointed  out  that  the 
agricultural  methods  of  New  York  differed  from  those  of 
England  and  required  Dutch  utensils.  In  addition,  he 
called  attention  to  the  fact  that  beaver  and  other  furs  had 
been  obtained  in  barter  for  Dutch  commodities,  such  as 
"camper  duffles,  hatchets,  and  other  ironworks  made  at 
Utrecht,  &c.,  much  esteemed  of  by  the  natives,"  and  stated 
that,  if  these  could  not  be  obtained,  the  Indian  trade  would 
be  totally  diverted  to  the  French.  After  citing  an  article 
in  the  terms  of  capitulation  of  1664,  which  permitted  trade 

^  About  two  months  after  the  surrender  in  1664,  Colonel  Nicolls  wrote 
to  Lord  Arlington  emphasizing  the  importance  of  the  English  merchants 
sending  large  quantities  of  merchandise,  as  otherwise  many  in  Virginia, 
Maryland,  and  New  England,  who  had  been  accustomed  to  secure  their 
supphes  from  New  Netherland,  would  be  in  want.  He  also  wrote  that  he 
feared  that  the  Dutch  might  try  to  regain  what  they  had  lost,  'which  is 
the  whole  trade  of  tobacco,'  and  stated  that  the  Marylanders  were  so 
'much  bribed  by  their  trade  with  the  Dutch'  that  they  were  not  eager  for 
the  conquest  of  the  Delaware  settlements.  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  809; 
N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  m,  p.  69. 


THE  DOMINION  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 


343 


with  Holland,  he  accordingly  petitioned  the  Duke  of  York 
to  allow  two  small  Dutch  vessels  to  make  a  voyage  to  New 
York  with  these  indispensable  suppUes.^ 

In  this  petition  Stuyvesant,  presumably  wilfully,  ignored 
the  succeeding  clause  in  the  terms  of  surrender,  which 
limited  this  freedom  of  trade  to  a  duration  of  six  months.^ 
This  matter  was  referred  to  the  Plantation  Committee,  and, 
on  their  report,  an  Order  in  Council  was  issued  in  1667, 
allowing  the  Dutch  for  seven  years  to  trade  with  three 
ships  to  New  York.^  This  order  was  far  more  extensive  in 
scope  than  anything  that  Stuyvesant  had  requested,  and 
was  seemingly  a  piece  of  gross  carelessness  arising  from  the 
government's  ignorance  of  the  terms  of  the  capitulation. 
Under  the  broad  scope  of  this  order.  New  York  could  have 
been  made  an  entrepot,  whence  the  other  colonies  could 
obtain  European  supplies  and  through  which  eniunerated 
goods  could  be  shipped  directly  to  Europe.  The  English 
merchants  trading  to  the  colonies  complained  that  foreign 
linens,  shoes,  stockings,  clothes,  and  other  commodities 
would  be  sent  in  this  manner  not  only  to  New  York,  but 
also  to  Virginia,  Barbados,  and  New  England.  Accordingly 
in  1668,  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Council  of  Trade, 
which  had  investigated  the  matter,  the  Privy  Council  re- 
voked its  order  of  the  preceding  year.^    Thereafter  the  Dutch 

1  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  m,  pp.  163,  164;  C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  1602. 

*  See  articles  6  and  7  of  the  Capitulation  at  the  Governor's  Bowry, 
Aug.  27, 1664.    C.  C.  1661-1668,  no.  794 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  II,  pp.  250-253. 

'  P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  444,  445 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  164-167 ;  C.  C. 
i66]>-i668,  no.  1603. 

*C.  C.  1661-1668,  nos.  1874,  1875,  1885;   P.  C.  Cal.  I,  pp.  491,  492, 


ill 


I 


»  III 


t 


'V' 


I 


a 


k  i    ' 


III  iJi> 


I 


1^ 


'    I 


f 


i! 


344 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


were  rigorously  excluded  from  all  commercial   intercourse 
with  their  former  colony  on  the  Hudson. 

Agriculture  was  the  chief  of  the  natural  resources  of  New 
York,  and  already  at  this  time  food-stuffs  were  exported  to 
the  West  Indies  and  Carolina.  In  addition,  some  beaver  and 
other  furs  were  secured  from  the  Indians,  cod  and  other 
fish  were  plentiful,  and  whales  were  caught  off  Long  Island.* 
In  1 67 1,  the  Governor,  Francis  Lovelace,  wrote  that  the 
colony  was  ^in  a  hopeful  and  thriving  condition,  their  har- 
bour being  fuller  with  shipping  than  ever  was  known  since 
the  discovery  was  made.'  ^  Governor  Lovelace  and  the  Col- 
lector of  the  provincial  revenue  appointed  by  him^  were 
careful  that  no  foreign  vessels  were  among  this  shipping,^ 
but  apparently  some  of  the  other  provisions  of  the  laws 

495,  496,  512,  513;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  10,  11;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill, 
pp.  175-178;  Winthrop  Papers  II,  pp.  315,  316.  This  order  was  dated 
Nov.  18,  1668.  Six  weeks  prior  to  its  issue,  the  Treasury  decided  that 
these  Dutch  ships  should  not  be  allowed  to  load  any  goods  of  Virginia, 
Barbados,  or  the  other  colonies,  but  only  the  produce  of  New  York.  Cal. 
Treas.  Books,  1 667-1 668,  pp.  449-450.  For  another  dispensation  of  the 
Navigation  Act  in  favor  of  New  York,  secured  in  1669,  see  ante,  Vol.  I, 
pp.  88,  89. 

1  Winthrop  Papers  II,  pp.  315,  316,  318;  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  21,  44, 
45,  49,  138,  139,  167 ;  Daniel  Denton,  A  Brief  Description  of  New  York 
(London,  1670),  p.  3.  In  1671,  however,  as  there  was  "a  generall  Scarcity 
of  wheate  throughout  this  Province,"  its  exportation  was  forbidden  for  one 
year.  Mmutes  of  the  New  York  Executive  CouncU,  1668-1673,  ed.  Paltsits, 
PP-  Si9>  520.     See  also  pp.  520-522. 

^  C.  C.  1669-1674,  p.  269. 

'  The  Collector  was  Cornelis  van  Ruijven.  Minutes  of  the  New  York 
Executive  Council,  1668-1673,  PP-  39,  40- 

*  See  the  cases  of  the  ships  Expectation  and  Batchelours  Delight.  Ibid. 
pp.  612-615,  643-646. 


THE  DOMINION  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 


345 


of  trade  were  not  so  strictly  observed.^  In  1673,  New 
York's  development  was  again  interrupted  by  a  change  in 
rulers,  but,  on  the  conclusion  of  hostilities  in  the  following 
year,  the  colony  was  restored  to  England  by  the  Dutch, 
much  to  the  relief  of  those  interested  in  the  future  of  the 
English  Empire.^ 

From  this  time  dates  the  real  development  of  New  York 
as  an  English  possession.  The  Duke  of  York  devoted  con- 
siderable attention  to  his  province,^  and  was  ably  seconded 
by  his  representatives  in  the  colony.  Governors  Andros 
and  Dongan.  Under  their  guidance  considerable  progress 
was  made  during  the  following  fourteen  years.  In  1678,* 
Andros  reported  that  New  York's  exports  consisted  of 
wheat,^  peas,  beef,  pork,  some  "refuse"  fish,  tobacco,  beaver 
and  other  furs  obtained  from  the  Indians,  timber  and  staves, 
horses,  and  also  some  pitch  and  tar.  Their  imports  com- 
prised manufactures  of  all  sorts  for  the  use  of  the  settlers 
and  for  the  Indian  trade.  There  were  few  merchants  in 
the  colony,  and  one  worth  £500  or  £1000,  he  said,  was  ac- 

*  The  tariff  put  into  effect  in  1668  provided  that  tobacco  exported  into 
any  of  the  King's  dominions  should  be  free  of  duty,  "but  such  quantityes 
thereof  as  shall  be  exported  into  forreigne  partes  shall  pay  halfe  penny 
per  pound  as  in  England."  Ibid.  p.  194.  This  shows  a  strange  ignorance 
or  disregard  of  the  enumeration  of  tobacco. 

2  C.  C.  1669-1674,  pp.  524-526,  530. 

'  At  the  outset,  he  was  especially  desirous  to  develop  its  fisheries  and  to 
import  ship-timber  thence  into  England.  Neither  scheme  was  successful 
and  the  latter  was  even  disastrous,  costing  the  Duke  a  considerable  sum  of 
money.    N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  232-234,  237 ;  C.  C.  1675-1676,  pp.  277,  278. 

*  C.  O.  155/1,  ff.  18-33 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  m,  pp.  260-262 ;  C.  C.  1677- 
1680,  pp.  237,  238. 

*  He  said  that  60,000  bushels  of  wheat  were  yearly  exported. 


•.' 


l 


^tm 


i 


; 

'  / 


1 


I 


I 


V,* 


346 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


counted  "a  good  substantial  Merchant,"  while  a  planter 
worth  only  half  as  much  in  movable  property  was  deemed 
rich.  The  aggregate  value  of  all  the  estates  in  New  York 
he  estimated  at  £150,000.  Ten  to  fifteen  ships  of  about 
one  hundred  tons  each  traded  there  yearly,  and  in  addition 
the  colony  owned  six  small  vessels,  of  which  four  had  been 
built  in  its  primitive  yards.^  In  1687,  Governor  Dongan 
reported  that  New  York  owned  about  a  dozen  vessels  of 
fair  size,  as  well  as  twenty  sloops,  all  of  which  were  engaged 
in  trading  up  the  Hudson  River  or  in  carrying  the  colony's 
products  to  market.  The  exports  to  England  were  mainly 
peltry,  whale-oil,  and  tobacco,  while  provisions  were  shipped 
to  the  West  Indies.^ 

Although  considerable  progress  had  been  made,  much 
more  could  have  been  attained  had  the  colony  not  been 
severely  handicapped.  In  the  first  place,  New  York  was  the 
bulwark  of  the  English  colonies  against  the  French,  who  at 
this  time  were  energetically  seeking  to  bring  the  Iroquois 
Indians  under  their  influence.^  In  the  second  place,  the 
separation  of  the  Jerseys  with  their  rich  agricultural  lands 

1  Three  years  later,  in  1681,  Andros  stated  that  when  he  first  came  to 
New  York  it  was  poor,  unsettled,  and  had  only  a  smaU  coasting  trade,  but 
that  since  then  its  commerce  had  increased  greatly  and  its  navigation  ten- 
fold.   C.  O.  1/47,  121 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  308-313- 

2  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  330.  On  the  importations  into  England  of  tobacco, 
hides,  and  furs  from  New  York,  see  Cal.  Dom.  1676-1677,  p.  409;   1677- 

1678,  p.  507.  ^  . 

3  In  1688,  Governor  Dongan  wrote  to  Sunderland:   "This  Government 

must  be  y^  Bullwark  to  Boston,  which  is  not  at  the  fourth  part  y"  charge 
New  Yorke  is,  and  has  ten  times  the  Revenue."  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp. 
510-512. 


THE  DOMINION  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 


347 


from  New  York  was  ill-advised,  as  it  lessened  the  colony's 
economic  and  fiscal  resources  and  consequently  its  ability 
to  cope  with  the  Indian  and  French  situation. 

Apart  from  the  excise  for  retailing  liquor  and  the  quit- 
rents,  which  were  inconsiderable,  the  New  York  revenue 
was  derived  from  export  duties  on  tobacco  and  furs  and  from 
small  import  duties.  An  additional  tax  was  levied  on 
goods  shipped  up  the  Hudson  for  the  Indian  trade.^  On 
the  opposite  side  of  the  river,  in  New  Jersey,  such  import 
duties  were  not  collected,  and  accordingly  commerce  was 
diverted  from  New  York.  Goods  were  smuggled  into  the 
colony  from  its  free-trade  neighbor,  and  there  was  danger 
that  the  fur-trade  and  the  revenue  arising  from  it  would  be 
lost  to  New  York.  In  1684,  the  Duke  instructed  Governor 
Dongan  not  to  suffer  any  goods  to  pass  up  the  Hudson 
River  but  such  as  had  paid  duties  in  New  York,  so  as  to 
keep  the  benefits  of  the  Indian  trade  for  the  inhabitants  of 
that  colony  and  the  revenue  arising  from  it  for  the  support 
of  the  government.^  This  instruction,  as  enforced  by  Don- 
gan, led  to  considerable  difficulty.^  In  1687,  the  proprie- 
tors of  East  New  Jersey  complained  to  the  King  that  Don- 
gan had  seized  at  Perth  Amboy  a  vessel  from  Ireland  and 
obliged  it  to  enter  at  New  York,  and  had  further  threat- 
ened to  seize  all  other  vessels  arriving  at  that  port.    They 

1  C.  O.  155/1,  ff.  18-33 ;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  237,  238 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc. 
Ill,  pp.  260-262,  305-308;  C.  O.  1/48,  118;  C.  O.  5/1112,  fif.  6-13;  C.  C. 
1685-1688,  pp.  330,  331. 

2  C.  C.  1681-1685,  P-  679 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  IH,  pp.  348, 349-  Cf.  C.  C. 
1681-1685,  P-  605. 

'  C.  C.  1681-1685,  pp.  4,  287. 


n 


'!> 


mmitmm. 


Ill  J 


f 


II 

I! 

I 


348 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


asserted  that  this  was  in  violation  of  their  privileges,  and 
that  the  duties  payable  in  New  York  were  levied  by  a  body 
in  which  their  colony  was  not  represented.  While  express- 
ing a  wiUmgness,  if  the  King  so  desired,  to  impose  similar 
duties  in  New  Jersey,  they  pointed  out  that  in  that  event 
such  customs  should  be  collected  as  well  in  all  the  other 
colonies,  'or  trade  will  desert  the  unfree  ports  for  the  free.'^ 
As  a  result  of  this  complaint,  Governor  Dongan  was  in- 
structed to  allow  all  vessels  bound  for  Perth  Amboy  to  enter 
there,  but  only  provided  the  government  of  East  New  Jer- 
sey permitted  the  New  York  customs  on  their  cargoes  to 

be  collected.^ 

No  great  increase  in  revenue  could,  however,  be  expected 
from  this  source.  New  York  was  unquestionably  in  need 
of  a  larger  income  in  order  to  be  able  to  withstand  the  ag- 
gressive pohcy  of  Denonville,  the  recently  appointed  Gov- 
ernor of  Canada.  Owing  to  the  incapacity  of  the  Collector, 
Lucas  Santen,  the  colony's  finances  were  in  a  deplorable 
state.  The  revenue  was  greatly  in  arrear,  and  the  amounts 
outstanding  could  not  be  collected.^    The  need  of  greater 

1  N.  J.  Col.  Doc.  I,  pp.  533-539;  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  378,  382,  396. 

2  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  419;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  p.  428.  The  instruc- 
tions issued  in  1687  to  the  New  York  CoUector,  Matthew  Plowman,  con- 
tain a  clause  to  the  same  effect.  C.  O.  5/1113,  ff-  140-146;  Blathwayt, 
Journal  I,  pp.  264-266 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp  501-503-    See  also  C.  C. 

1685-1688,  pp.  526,  572. 

3  Santen  was  also  a  member  of  the  New  York  Council  and  the  royal 
CoUector  of  the  Customs,  and,  in  addition  to  collecting  the  provincial 
revenue  and  enforcing  the  laws  of  trade,  he  attended  to  such  questions  as 
to  whether  ships  arriving  at  New  York  had  violated  the  charter  of  the 
Royal  African  Company  and  were  consequentiy  liable  to  seizure.    C.  C. 


THE  DOMINION  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 


349 


resources  in  order  to  cope  with  the  French  led  directly  to 
the  demand  that  the  Jerseys  and  Delaware  be  annexed 
to  New  York.  In  1685,  the  Mayor  of  New  York  com- 
plained that  since  these  colonies  had  been  separated 
from  the  province,  the  city  had  lost  a  third  of  its  trade.^ 
It  was  in  consequence  of  this  and  similar  complaints  that 
proceedings  were  instituted  in  1685  against  the  charters 
of  these  colonies.  But  the  annexation  of  the  Jerseys  would 
not  have  materially  increased  New  York's  resources.  As 
Governor  Dongan  wrote  in  1688,  'were  the  Jerseys  annexed 
to  us,  they  would  not  bring  us  in  £100  a  year  nor  fifty  men 
in  case  of  need,  though  East  Jersey,  it  is  true,  is  conven- 
ient for  us  to  preserve  what  revenue  we  have.'  ^  Hence 
arose  a  demand  that  Connecticut,  against  whose  charter 
a  writ  of  quo  warranto  had  also  been  issued,  be  likewise 
added  to  New  York.  In  their  despatches,  Dongan  and  the 
New  York  officials  insistently  urged  the  necessity  of  annex- 
ing this  colony  as  well  as  their  southern  neighbors.^  If 
this  were  done,  Dongan  wrote  in  1687  to  James  II  and 
his  chief  minister,  the  Earl  of  Simderland,  New  York 
could  easily  defray  its  expenses  and  would  no  longer  be  a 
charge  on  the  Crown.*    A  few  weeks  later,  he  even  sug- 

1685-1688,  pp.  42,  220,  231,  232,  242,  249,  305.  His  accounts  of  the  local 
revenue  were  in  such  disorder  that  Dongan  suspended  him  from  office  in 
1687.  Ibid.  pp.  270,  279,  280,  287,  288,  294,  298,  301,  303,  309,  321,  322, 
325,  330-332,  370,  371 ;  C.  C.  1699,  p.  604;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  420- 
424,  492 ;  Doc.  Hist,  of  New  York  I,  no.  6. 

1  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  42. 

^  Ibid.  p.  499;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  510-512. 

'  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  289,  367. 

*  Ibid.  pp.  321,  322,  325, 326;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  HI,  pp.  420-423. 


a 


1 


1j' 

) 


i 


h 


V. 


) 


350 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


gested  the  annexation  of  Rhode  Island.^  So  inadequate 
was  the  New  York  revenue  at  this  time  that  the  patri- 
otic Governor  spent  his  own  perquisites,  pledged  his 
credit,  and  even  pawned  his  plate  to  provide  for  the  cur- 
rent expenses.^ 

Throughout  the  balance  of  the  year,  Dongan  continued 
to  press  this  policy  of  annexation.'  On  October  25,  1687, 
he  wrote  to  Simderland  that,  unless  some  steps  were  taken, 
the  beaver  trade  and  England's  title  to  northern  New  York 
would  be  lost,  and  the  French  would  then  encroach  on  the 
other  colonies  as  they  had  done  on  this.  *By  hard  words, 
fair  words,  and  a  little  bribery  I  have  hitherto  kept  the  Ind- 
ians to  us  indifferent  well,'  he  wrote,  ^but  that  will  not  do 
always,  for  the  French  are  very  industrious,  both  by  fair 
means  and  foul,  to  induce  them  to  join  them,  and  where 
I  spend  a  shilling  they  are  proud  to  spend  ten  pound.' 
The  New  York  revenue,  he  continued,  had  fallen  off  nearly 
one-half,  owing  to  the  diminution  of  the  beaver  trade,  so 
that  the  King  will  be  at  great  expense  to  maintain  the  colony 
imless  Connecticut  be  annexed.  In  conclusion,  he  wrote 
that  if  the  King  should  add  Connecticut  to  the  province  of 
New  England,  as  was  reported,  then  it  would  be  advisable  to 
include  New  York  also,  ^for  we  cannot  maintain  ourselves 
as  we  are.'  ^  This  was  the  solution  adopted.  In  the  spring 
of  1688,  Dongan  was  ordered  to  return  to  England,  where 
he  was  assured  of  royal  favors  for  his  good  services.    A  few 

^  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  326,  327. 

2  Ibid.  p.  333.  «  Ibid.  pp.  370,  371,  375,  376. 

*  Ibid.  pp.  457,  458.    See  also  Dongan's  despatch  of  Feb.  19,  1688. 
Ibid.  pp.  498,  499;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  510-512. 


THE  DOMINION  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 


351 


months  later,  on  the  arrival  in  New  York  of  Sir  Edmund 
Andros,  the  colony  was  incorporated  in  the  Dominion  of 
New  England.^  But  before  the  military  efficiency  of  this 
step  could  be  adequately  tested,^  the  news  of  the  Revolu- 
tion in  England  dissolved  this  artificial  union  into  its  com- 
ponent elements. 

As  a  natural  consequence  of  the  fact  that  the  Duke  of 
York  was  proprietor  of  the  province,  the  laws  of  trade 
were  more  strictly  enforced  in  New  York  than  in  most  of 
the  other  proprietary  and  charter  colonies.^  Their  execu- 
tion was  in  the  hands  of  the  Governor  and  the  royal  cus- 
toms officials.  These  collectors  of  the  customs  were  also  as 
a  rule  entrusted  by  the  Duke  of  York  with  the  manage- 
ment of  the  provincial  revenue.* 

1  C.  C.  1685-1688,  pp.  533,  597- 

2  On  Aug.  19,  1688,  Randolph  wrote  to  Blathwayt  that  the  New  York 
revenue  was  nearly  £5000  a  year,  and  that  they  had  raised  a  tax  of  £2555 
to  pay  their  soldiers,  whose  pay  was  eleven  months  in  arrear.  Goodrick, 
Randolph  VI,  pp.  258  et  seq. 

3  In  fact,  the  New  York  revenue  law  of  1674  was  designed  to  reinforce 
the  laws  of  trade  in  securing  the  colonial  market  to  England.  It  imposed 
a  two  per  cent  duty  on  all  imports,  "but  if  it  shall  appeare  that  any  ship 
came  from  any  other  Country  to  England  w^^  a  Cargo  of  Goods  and  pay- 
ing the  Customs  there,  proceed  thence  for  New  York  w*^  y^  said  Cargo 
upon  the  Goods  of  such  Cargo  to  pay  Ten  p  Cent  ad  valorem."  C.  O. 
5/ 1 1 12,  f.  6.  See  also  Lewin's  remarks  on  this  law,  and  Dongan's  state- 
ment of  1687  regarding  a  similar  provision  later.  C.  O.  1/48,  118;  C.  C. 
1685-1688,  p.  330. 

*  On  July  2,  1674,  William  Dyre  was  commissioned  by  the  Duke  of 
York  to  be  Collector  of  the  New  York  provincial  revenue.  In  this  com- 
mission and  the  accompanying  instructions  there  is  no  reference  whatso- 
ever to  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation.  C.  O.  5/1112,  ff.  4,  5,  12,  13; 
N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  222,  223.  By  warrant  of  May  15,  1674,  the  Treas- 
ury authorized  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  to  appoint  Peter  Smith 


:1 


il;  ( 


Il 


f 


r     I 


ii 


352 


THE   OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


In  1678,  Governor  Andros  stated  that  these  laws  were 
obeyed.^  Some  three  years  later,  however,  John  Lewin, 
who  had  been  commissioned  by  the  Duke  to  investigate 
charges  of  maladministration  in  New  York  reported  that 
not  only  had  frauds  been  committed  in  the  provincial 
revenue,  but  that  William  Dyre,  the  Collector  of  these 
taxes,  had  several  times  allowed  Frederick  Phillipse  to 
import  directly  from  Holland  contraband  goods,  especially 
such  as  were  used  in  the  Indian  trade.  Similar  favoritism, 
he  claimed,  had  been  shown  towards  a  few  other  Dutch 
merchants,  while  in  general  the  usage  was  so  rigid  that 

as  Collector  and  Surveyor  in  New  York,  and  a  simUar  warrant  subsequently- 
ordered  the  appointment  of  John  Sharp  as  Comptroller  and  Surveyor  Gen- 
eral. In  1683,  John  Clarke  was  appointed  to  succeed  John  Sharp  deceased. 
Cal.  Treas.  Books,  1672-1675,  pp.  498,  501,  522,  641 ;  Treas.  Books,  Out- 
Letters,  Customs  8,  f.  196.  On  Feb.  17,  1683,  the  Duke  of  York  appointed 
Lucas  Santen  to  be  Collector  and  Receiver  General  of  the  New  York  reve- 
.nues  with  a  salary  of  £200.  On  Nov.  4,  1687,  James  II  issued  a  commis- 
sion to  Matthew  Plowman  to  succeed  Santen.  These  commissions,  as  well 
as  the  instructions  issued  to  Santen  and  Plowman,  refer  solely  to  the  New 
York  revenue.  C.  O.  s/1112,  f.  45;  C.  O.  5/1113,  ff-  138-146;  N.  Y.  Col. 
Doc.  Ill,  pp.  335,  336,  500-503;  Blathwayt,  Journal  I,  ff.  191,  260,  261, 
264-266.  In  addition,  Santen  and  Plowman  were  appointed  Collectors  of 
the  Customs  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Customs  and  were  thus  author- 
dized  to  enforce  the  trade  laws.  On  Aug.  17,  1684,  a  warrant  was  issued 
for  the  appointment  of  Lucas  Santen  in  place  of  Peter  Smith,  lately  de- 
ceased, and  on  Oct.  12,  1687,  a  similar  warrant  was  issued  in  favor  of 
Matthew  Plowman  in  place  of  Santen,  dismissed.  Treas.  Books,  Out-Let- 
ters, Customs  9,  f.  28;  II,  f.  68.  See  also  Toppan,  Randolph  IV,  pp.  251, 
252 ;  C.  C.  1 685-1 688,  p.  305.  According  to  Randolph,  Andros  in  1688 
proposed  that  Cortlandt  should  succeed  Plowman,  "if  the  Lords  of  the 
Treasury  do  not  thinke  fitt  to  continue  him  in  that  station."  Goodrick, 
Randolph  VI,  p.  273. 

1  C.  O.  155/1,  ff.  18-33;  C.  C.  1677-1680,  pp.  237,  238;  N.  Y.  Col. 
Doc.  Ill,  pp.  260-262. 


* 


THE  DOMINION  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 


353 


trade  had  been  obstructed  and  immigration  from  Barbados 
and  elsewhere  had  been  prevented.^  In  reply,  Andros 
stated  that  he  had  appointed  a  full  staff  of  customs  officials, 
each  one  of  whom  was  a  check  on  the  other,  and  that  if 
they  had  allowed  any  illegal  importations  or  exportations, 
they  were  responsible  for  them,  but  that  he  "never  knew 
of  any  such  practices."  As  to  the  specific  charge  of  con- 
nivance with  the  Dutch  merchants,  Andros  said  that  this 
was  based  upon  hearsay  and  that  the  two  principal  men 
implicated  by  Lewin  were  prominent  citizens,  members  of 
the  Council,  and  had  not  been  favored.^  On  investigation 
of  the  matter,  the  EngHsh  government  completely  exoner- 
ated Andros  and  Dyxe.^  A  few  years  later,  a  similar  inci- 
dent occurred.  In  1687,  Governor  Dongan  asserted  that 
the  colony  was  'very  honest  in  obeying  the  Navigation 
Acts,'  *  but  he  accused  Lucas  Santen,  the  inefficient  Collec- 
tor of  the  Customs  and  of  the  New  York  Revenues,  of  neg- 
ligence in  taking  bonds  from  masters  of  ships. ^  In  his 
turn,  Santen  made  counter-accusations,  stating  that  Dongan 
was  interested  in  various  transactions  that  were  contrar}^ 
to  the  laws  of  trade,  but  the  Governor  was  able  to  satisfy 
the  government  of  his  innocence.^  Such  charges  and 
coimter-charges  were  freely  made  during  the  seventeenth 
and  eighteenth  centuries,  and  were  the  most  conspicuous  of 
offensive  weapons  used  by  the  officials  of  the  day  in  their 

*  C.  O.  1/48,  118;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  305-308. 
2  C.  O.  1/47,  121 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  308-313- 

'  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  555 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  314-316. 

*  C.  C.  1685-1688,  p.  371.  5  Ibid.  p.  332. 

®  Ibid.  pp.  332,  333 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.  Ill,  pp.  493  et  seq. 


2A 


(2) 


i 


tl 


a 


« 


11 


[ 


i 

III 


lli 


* 


354 


THE  OLD   COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


not  infrequent  mutual  recriminations.  Like  all  statements 
made  in  the  heat  of  argument  they  were  grossly  intemperate 
and  exaggerated,  and  hence  throw  little  light  on  the  actual 
conditions  that  prevailed.  But  the  frequency  with  which 
such  accusations  were  made  during  these  controversies  be- 
tween officials  indicates  that  a  charge  of  laxity  in  the  admin- 
istration of  the  laws  of  trade  was  one  of  the  most  effective 
means  of  blasting  a  public  servant's  reputation  with  the 
English  authorities.  Other  faults  might  possibly  be  over- 
looked, but  neglect  of  duty  in  these  matters  would  not  be 
condoned;  for  above  all  else  the  Enghsh  government  sought 
effectively  to  establish  the  laws  of  trade  and  navigation  and 
to  create  a  self-sufficient  cormnercial  Empire.  This  was  the 
paramount  aim  in  view. 


|ilWMI..*Jl 


LIST  OF  THE  CHIEF  ABBREVIATIONS  USED 
IN  THE  REFERENCES 

African  Co.  Papers.  —  These  documents  are  in  the  London  Record  Oflfice, 
and  are  listed  as  Treasury  Board  —  Miscellanea,  Expired  Commis- 
sions. 

Blathwayt,  Journal.  —  These  three  volumes,  containing  a  record  of  Blath- 
wayt's  activities  as  Auditor  and  Surveyor  General  of  the  colonial 
revenues,  are  in  the  Treasury  documents  in  the  London  Record  Office. 

B  T.  —  These  are  the  Board  of  Trade  Papers  in  the  London  Record  Office, 
which  have  been  completely  rearranged  since  the  beginning  of  these 
investigations.  In  a  few  instances,  it  was  impossible  to  secure  in 
time  for  publication  the  new  references,  but  these  can  be  readily 
secured  from  the  "  key  "  at  the  disposal  of  students  in  the  Record 

Office. 
Bodleian.  —  The  various  collections  of  documents  in  the  Bodleian  Library 

at  Oxford. 
Brit.  Mus.  —  The  manuscripts  deposited  in  the  British  Museum  at  London. 
C.  C  — Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Colonial  Series,  America  and  West 

Indies. 
Cal.  Dom.  —  Calendar  of  Domestic  State  Papers. 
Cal.  Treas.  Books.  —  Calendar  of  the  Treasury  Books. 
Cal.  Treas.  Papers.  —  Calendar  of  the  Treasury  Papers. 
Calvert  Papers.  —  Published  by  the  Maryland  Historical  Society. 
Col.  Entry  Book.  —  As  in  the  case  of  the  Board  of  Trade  Papers,  a  few 

references  have  been  made  to  these  volumes  in  th    Public  Record 

Office  under  their  original    designation.     The  corresponding  new 

reference  is  readily  ascertainable. 
C.  O.  —  Colonial  Office  Records  in  the  Public  Record  Office  at  London. 
Com.  Journal.  —  Journal  of  the  House  of  Commons. 
Goodrick.  —  The  supplementary  volumes  of  the  Randolph  papers  edited  by 

Goodrick  for  the  Prince  Society. 
Hening.  —  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  Virginia. 
H.M.C.  — The  British  Historical  Manuscripts  Commission. 

3SS 


I 


rt 


f 


Ii(|: 


mi  ^w 


mf^mm 


>\h 


f'l 


[  i 


j  P 


■I  i 
h  '  ii 


■■  (I  I 


t 


i.  " 


356 


THE  OLD  COLONIAL  SYSTEM 


Hutchinson  Papers.  -- Published  by  the  Prince  Society. 

Lefroy.  —J.  H.  Lefroy,  Memorials  of  the  Discovery  and  Early  Settlement 
of  the  Bermudas  or  Somers  Islands,  2  vols.,  London,  1877-1879. 

Lords  Journal.  —  Journal  of  the  House  of  Lords. 

Mass.  Col.  Rec— Records  of  the  Governor  and  Company  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts Bay  in  New  England. 

P.  C.  Cal.  —  Calendar  of  the  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  Colonial  Series. 

P.  C.  Register.  —  The  original  volumes  of  the  Privy  Council  Register  in 
Downing  Street,  London. 

Shaftesbury  Papers.  —  The  collection  deposited  in  the  London  Record 
Office. 

S.  P.  Dom.  —  The  Domestic  State  Papers  at  the  London  Record  Office. 
S.  P.  Foreign.  —  The  Foreign  State  Papers  at  the  London  Record  Office. 
Toppan,  Randolph.  — The  Randolph  papers  edited  by  Toppan  for  the 

Prince  Society. 
Treas.  Books.  —  The  original  Treasury  Books  in  the  London  Record  Office. 
Va.  Mag.  —  The  Virgim'a  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography. 
Winthrop  Papers.  —  Published  in  the  CoUections  of  the  Massachusetts 

Historical  Society. 


INDEX 


"Account  of  the  English  Sugar  Planta- 
tions" (1667),  n.  11-12. 

Administrative  system  of  the  Crown,  for 
managing  colonial  affairs,  I.  224  ff. ; 
the  Privy  Council  and  its  committees, 
227-231 ;  Council  for  Foreign  Plan- 
tations (1660),  231-239;  Council  of 
Trade  (1660),  234-239;  a  general 
colonial  committee,  formed  in  1668, 
240;  a  new  Council  of  Trade  (1668), 
243 ;  a  salaried  colonial  council  (1670), 
244-247;  Council  for  Trade  and 
Plantations  (1672),  247-254;  Com- 
mittee for  Trade  and  Foreign  Planta- 
tions, or  Lords  of  Trade  (1675),  256- 
258;  departments  of  the  Admiralty 
and  the  Treasury,  259  ff. ;  Commis- 
sioners of  the  Customs,  262-264; 
local  representatives  of  depart- 
ments, in  royal  provinces,  264-265; 
Naval  Officers,  267-272;  officials 
representing  the  Farmers  of  the 
Customs,  272-276;  Commissioners 
of  the  Customs,  276-277;  collec- 
tors of  the  Customs  in  the  colonies, 
277-280;  office  of  comptroller  and 
surveyor  general,  280-281;  a  Sur- 
veyor General  of  the  Customs,  281- 
284;  development  of  dual  system  in 
customs  administration,  291 ;  agents 
of  the  Admiralty  in  the  colonies,  292 
ff. ;  difficulties  resulting  from  con- 
flicts of  authority,  314-315. 

Admiralty,  work  of,  in  execution  of  laws 
of  trade  and  navigation,  I.  259-260; 
representatives  of  department,  in  the 
colonies,  292  ff. ;  authority  of,  con- 
fined to  crown  colonies,  296-297. 

Admiralty  courts,  colonial,  I.  292; 
erected  in  the  crown  colonies,  296- 
298;  appointment  of  officials  in,  by 
governors,  299-300 ;  appeal  from  deci- 
sions of,  300-303;    use  of,  for  con- 


demning prizes,  304-307;  court 
erected  in  Massachusetts  (1686),  II. 
329-330. 

Admiralty's  tenths  of  prizes  of  war 
taken  at  sea,  I.  170. 

Adulteration  of  tobacco  resulting  from 
impost  of  1685,  I.  166. 

Africa,  trade  of  England  to  (i  696-1 702), 
1.44. 

African  Company,  the  first  English 
(1660),  I.  325-326;  the  second  (Com- 
pany of  Royal  Adventurers  trading  to 
Africa,  1663),  326-327;  difficulty  of, 
in  obtaining  slaves,  331-333;  bad 
condition  of,  at  conclusion  of  Dutch 
war,  335;  formal  charges  against, 
335-338;  reorganization  of  second, 
into  a  third,  the  Royal  African  Com- 
pany, 341  {see  Royal  African  Com- 
pany). 

Agricultural  products,  export  duties  on 
English,  under  tariff  of  1660,  I.  131. 

Albemarle,  first  Duke  of,  member  of  com- 
mittee on  state  of  Jamaica,  I.  229  n. 

Albemarle,  second  Duke  of,  actions 
as  Governor  of  Jamaica,  and  death 
of,  I.  366.  ij 

Albemarle  Sound,  origins  of  North 
Carolina  in  settlement  on,  II.  180, 191, 
194-200.    See  North  Carolina. 

Algerian  pirates,  protection  of  English 
commerce  against,  I.  1 21-12 7. 

Aliens*  duties  in  Navigation  Act  of 
1660,  I.  62  n.,  66  n. 

Allen,  Captain,  stationed  in  Virginia 
and  Maryland  waters,  I.  310-31 1,  II. 
162  ff.;  quoted  on  illegal  trading  in 
Virginia,  II.  163-165, 

AUington,  Lord,  member  of  special  co- 
lonial council,  I.  244. 

Alsop,  George,  quoted  on  trade  of  Mary- 
land, II.  168  n. 

Ambergris  in  the  Bahamas,  H.  87. 


357 


! 


I 


I 


•«f»l 


lap^BP 


t' 


)! 


I'' 


358 


INDEX 


America,  English  trade  with  colonies  in, 
at  period  of   Restoration,   I,  15-17; 
arguments   for   and   against  emigra- 
tion to,  19  flf. 
Andrews,  C.  M.,  cited,  I.  234  n.,  235, 

241,  249  n.,  II.  306  n. 
Andros,  Sir  Edmund,  admiralty  juris- 
diction of,  as  Governor  of  New  York, 
I.  296  n. ;    on  attitude  of  Massachu- 
setts   to    the    imperial    relation,    II. 
277  n. ;  on  importations  to  Massachu- 
setts from  Europe,  288;    cited,  317; 
administration  of  government  of  New 
England  by,  331  ff.;   autocratic  char- 
acter of  government  of,  distasteful  to 
New  Englanders,  332-333;  disturbing 
land   policy  of,   334-335 ;    on   trade 
conditions  in  New  York  in  1678,  345 ; 
on  reported  violations  of  laws  of  trade 
in  New  York,  353. 
Annesley,  Arthur,    Earl    of   Anglesey, 
member  of  committee  on  state  of  Ja- 
maica, I.  229  n. ;  member  of  Council 
for  Foreign  Plantations,  237. 
Antigua,    statistics    of    trade    between 
England  and,  I.  42  n. ;    planting  of 
tobacco  in,  in  1660,  II.  32;   the  only 
island   of    Leeward   Islands   to   con- 
tinue growing  tobacco,  36,  37.     See 
also  Leeward  Islands. 
Arlington,  Earl  of,  interest  of,  in  colonial 
expansion,  I.  8 ;   grant  of  Virginia  to, 
by  Charles  II,  I.   194,  II.   131-132; 
promoter  of  idea  of  Council  of  Trade,  I. 
242 ;  member  of  new  Council  of  Trade 
(1668),  243;  retirement  of ,  254;  a  pat- 
entee of  Royal  African  Company,  341. 
Ashe,  Thomas,  pamphleteer,  II.  187  n. 
Ashley,    Lord,    I.    232;     promoter    of 
idea  of  Council  of  Trade,   242-243; 
a  patentee  of  the  CaroUnas,  II.  86, 
178;    the  guiding  spirit  among  Caro- 
lina proprietors,   181 ;    letter  of  ad- 
monition of,  to  Charles  Town  colony, 
184-185.     See  Shaftesbury. 
Ashley,  W.  J.,  cited,  I.  107  n. 
Ashley  River,  South    Carolina,  settle- 
ment on  (Charles  Town),  II.  i8r» 
Assembly,   the  Virginia,  11.   134,   136, 

137  ff. 
Assiento,  the,  1. 330  n.,  363  n.,  364,  II.  85. 


Atkins,  Sir  Jonathan,  Governor  of  Bar- 
bados, I.  188  n.,  347-349,  372;  con- 
troversy between  Secretary  of  State 
and,  270-271;  reprimanded  in  con- 
nection with  illicit  African  trade  to 
Barbados,  372-373;  when  appointed 
Governor  of  Barbados  in  1673,  seeks 
to  secure  redress  for  complaints  of 
colonists,  II.  15  ff.;  reprimand  ad- 
ministered to,  20-21 ;  quoted  and 
cited,  17-18,  31  n.,  69  n.,  145. 

Auditing  of  colonial  accounts,  appoint- 
ment of  oflScers  for  (1680),  I.  220-223. 

Avalon,  Lord  Baltimore's  province  of, 
in  Newfoundland,  I.  227  n.,  II. 
203,  204,  205,  221-222. 

Ayleway,  Robert,  claim  of,  to  auditor- 
ship  of  Virginia  accounts,  I.  222  n. 

Azores,  provisions  concerning  wine  of 
the,  in  Staple  Act  of  1663, 1.  78-79. 

Bacon,  Nathaniel,  meteoric  career  of,  II. 

137-139. 

Bacon,  Nathaniel,  Sr.,  Auditor  of  Vir- 
ginia accounts,  I.  221  n. 

Bacon's  rebellion,  I.  115,  117;  Giles 
Bland's  fatal  participation  in,  290; 
causes  leading  up  to,  II.  129  ff.; 
accotmt  of,  137-139 . 

Badcock,  Nicholas,  customs  oflficial  in 
Maryland,  I.  98-100,  280-281,  II. 
172;  quoted,  II.  172  n. 

Bahamas,  first  settlement  of,  by  English 
from  Bermudas,  II.  85-86;  commodi- 
ties produced  in,  87;  reservation  of 
certain  commodities  by  the  proprie- 
tors, 87;  hope  of  being  joined  to 
Jamaica  overruled  by  proprietors,  88 ; 
development  of,  retarded  by  lawless 
men  and  pirates,  89;  closeness  of 
connection  between  Bermudas  and,  90. 

Baltimore,  Lord  (the  first),  I.  276-277; 
form  of  acknowledgment  of  English 
suzerainty  by,  I.  169. 

Baltimore,  Lord  (the  third),  diflScul- 
ties  of,  over  customs  duties,  I.  98-100, 
II.  170-175;  cited  on  amount  of 
tobacco  destroyed  in  Virginia  in  1682, 
II.  153;  risk  run  by,  of  losing  Mary- 
land charter,  175.  See  also  Calvert, 
Charles. 


INDEX 


359 


Barbados,  deportation  of  undesirables 
to,  I.  29 ;  customs  paid  on  goods  from 
(1676-1677),  37  n. ;  statistics  of  trade 
between  England  and,  42  n.;  argu- 
ments for  colonization  of,  47-48 ;  mili- 
tary force  stationed  in,  114;  refining 
of  sugar  in,  151 ;  grades  of  sugar  made 
in,  151  n. ;  opposition  in,  to  imp)ost  of 
1685  on  sugar,  162, 164-165 ;  agitation 
of,  results  in  dropping  of  duties  in 
1693,  167;  collection  of  "casual 
revenue"  in,  171;  the  Carlisle  patent 
and  questions  rising  from,  171  ff. ; 
contest  for  a  revenue  from  taxation 
of,  176  ff . ;  passage  of  four  and  a  half 
per  cent  export  duty  by  proprietary 
Assembly  of,  179;  wrangling  as  to 
purpose  to  which  new  revenue  should 
be  applied,  181-183;  dissatisfaction 
of,  with  farming  out  of  revenue, 
186;  actual  income  from  revenue 
(1670-1684),  192  n. ;  position  of  Naval 
Ofl&cer  of,  269-271 ;  corps  of  customs 
ofl&cials  in  (1684),  286;  slaves  in,  320 
ff. ;  controversy  of,  with  English 
African  Company,  335  ff. ;  objection- 
able debtor  laws  of,  347-348 ;  disputes 
between  Royal  African  Company  and, 
348-351;  illicit  African  traders  en- 
couraged by,  371  ff. ;  bitterness  in, 
over  fall  in  price  of  sugar,  II.  2  ff.; 
importance  of  sugar  and  cotton  as 
products  of,  3  n. ;  increase  in  wealth  of 
(1643-1666),  9;  numbers  of  slaves  in, 
10;  move  for  free  trade  between 
Scotland  and,  lo-i  2 ;  disastrous  con- 
flagration in,  13;  refusal  of  govern- 
ment to  relax  trade  regulations  in 
favor  of,  18-21 ;  chief  grievance  of, 
the  enumeration  of  sugar,  22-24;  the 
secondary  grievance  concerning  free 
trade  with  Scotland,  24-25;  extent 
of  illegal  trading  in,  25-27;  economic 
progress  of,  in  reaUty  steady  though 
slow,  28-30;  production  of  other  ex- 
otic commodities  than  sugar,  30-31 ; 
amount  of  shipping  from,  31 ;  sever- 
ing of  political  connection  between 
Leeward  Islands  and,  34 ;  jealousy  of, 
toward  Leeward  Islands,  39;  small 
area  of,  compared  with  Jamaica,  48; 


comparison  of  Jamaica   and,   as   to 

suitabiUty  for  sugar  production,  80; 

trade   between    Bermudas    and,    93; 

attempts  to  found  settlements  in  the 

Carolinas  from,  179-180. 
Barbados  Committee,  resistance  of,  to 

attempt  to  levy  additional  duties  on 

sugar  (1671),  I.  154  ff. 
Barbary  corsairs,  I.  121,  122-124;  pro- 
tection of  English  shipping  against, 

124-127. 
Barbon,  Nicholas,  writer  on  economic 

questions,  I.  107  n. 
Barbour,  Violet,  article  by,  II.  56  n. 
Barefoote,  Walter,  deputy  Collector  of 

Customs  in  New  Hampshire,  II.  319- 

320. 
Beaver  pelts,  imports  of,  to  England,  I. 

40  n.    See  Furs. 
Beckford,  Peter,  Secretary  of  Jamaica, 

I.  353- 

Beer,  G.  L.,  works  by,  cited,  I.  2,  19,  35, 
37,  59,  61,  71,  112,  132  n.,  136  n.,137, 
138,  142,  193,  204,  224,  231,  260,  323, 

325,  334,  n.  I,  7,  48,  85,  91,  108,  "6, 
128,  189,  202,  227,  231,  310. 

Behn,  Aphra,  description  of  method  of 
selling  slaves,  331  n. 

Beque  (Beck),  agent  of  Coymans 
Brothers,  I.  364  n. 

Berkeley,  Lord,  appointment  in  1649  to 
ofl5ce  of  Treasurer  of  Virginia,  I.  193 
n. ;  a  member  of  Council  for  Foreign 
Plantations,  232;  member  of  new 
Council  of  Trade  (1668),  243;  inter- 
ested in  African  trading  company, 
326;     a  patentee   of    the   Carolinas, 

II.  178. 

Berkeley,  Sir  William,  Governor  of  Vir- 
ginia, on  customs  revenue  from  colonial 
goods,  I.  36  n. ;  quoted,  39  n. ;  re- 
quests that  prohibition  of  tobacco 
industry  in  England  be  enforced,  141 ; 
source  of  revenue  for  paying  salary  of, 
204-205;  a  member  of  Council  for 
Foreign  Plantations,  232;  quarrel  of, 
with  Bland,  Collector  of  Customs,  288- 
290;  on  lack  of  need  of  an  admiralty 
court  in  Virginia,  297-298 ;  criticism 
by,  of  English  policy  toward  Virginia 
tobacco   industry,   II.    11 2-1 14;    an 


I 


,1 


I"  i* 


I 


I 


/ 


i 


360 


INDEX 


advocate  of  plan  of  curtailing  tobacco 
crop  in  Virginia  and  Maryland,  118- 
119;    dislike  of,  for  tobacco,  119  n.; 
hopes  of,   for   diversifying   economic 
life     of     Virginia,     125-126;  quoted 
concerning  gift  of  silk  to  Charles  II 
from  colony,  127  n.;    position  of,  as 
head  of  the  oligarchical  Virginia  gov- 
ernment, 134-135 ;  conservative  char- 
acter   of,    135;    conduct   of,   during 
period  of  Bacon's  rebellion,  137-139; 
recall  and  death  of,  140-141 ;   quoted 
on  discontent  in  Virginia  over  taxation, 
142  n. ;  on  comparative  conditions  in 
Virginia  and  New  England  from  scarc- 
ity of  provisions,  146  n. ;  quoted,  161 
n. ;  among  the  patentees  of  the  Caro- 
linas,  17. 
Bermuda  Company,  the,  I.  199,  226,  II. 
90;   irksome  trade  regulations  of,  II. 
90  ff. ;  fruitless  petition  of  merchants 
for  relief  from,  93-95 ;  continued  agita- 
tion against,  resulting  in  the  Crown's 
taking  over  the  Company's  rights  and 
privileges,  95-97- 
Bermudas,  customs  paid  on  goods  from 
(1676-1677),  I.  37  n.;    statistics  of 
trade  between  England  and,  42  n.; 
succession  of  Crown  to  proprietorship 
of,   199-200;    difficulties  over   trade 
regulations  and  collection  of  revenue 
in,  200-201,  II.  93-101 ;  early  develop- 
ment of,  II.  90;    tobacco  the  staple 
crop  of,  90-91;    amount  of  tobacco 
produced  in,  91 ;   products  other  than 
tobacco  in,  93;   population  and  pros- 
perity of,  101-102;   on  the  whole,  of 
strategic  rather  than  economic  value 
to  England,  102-103. 
Berry,  Sir  John,  sent  as  commissioner  to 
Virgmia,  II.  140-141 ;    cited,  213  n.; 
report    on    Newfoundland   by,    214- 
216. 

Beverley,  Robert,  historian  of  Virginia, 
II.  143  n. 

Bevin     (Bevis,     Beven),     Robert,     I. 
380. 

Biggs,  Timothy,  customs  official  in  North 

Carolina,  I.  281,  II.  198. 
Bird,    Valentine,    a    leader    of    North 

Carolina  rebellion,  II.  198. 


Biscay,  fishers  from,  in  Newfoundland 
waters,  II.  228  n. 

Blackiston,  Nehemiah,  customs  official, 
I.  280  n.,  281 ;  quarrels  of,  with  colo- 
nial authorities  in  Maryland,  II.  174. 

Blake,  Nicholas,  quoted  and  cited,  I. 
186,  320  n.;   mentioned,  II.  15  n. 

Bland,  Giles,  collector  of  customs  in  Vir- 
ginia, I.  278,  II.  no;  quarrel  between 
Governor  Berkeley  and,  and  death  of, 
I.  288-290,  II.  161-162;  on  the  Vir- 
ginia poll-tax,  II.  136;  account  by, 
of  unrest  in  Virginia,  140  n. 

Bland,  John,  I.  288,  II.  51 ;  criticism  by, 
of  English  policy  toward  Virginia 
tobacco  industry,  II.  109-112. 

Blathwayt,  WiUiam,  as  a  power  in 
colonial  affairs,  I.  n;  cited,  79  n., 
115  n.,  169,  170,  171,  193  n.,  194,  196, 
198  n.,  208,  221,  222  n.,  376  n.,  II.  130, 
292  n.,  337  n.;  appointed  Surveyor 
and  Auditor  General  of  His  Majesty's 
revenues  in  America,  I.  220-221; 
work  of,  in  connection  with  Lords  of 
Trade,  257-258;  Professor  Channing's 
error  relative  to,  II.  262  n. 
Blessing,  Carolina  proprietors'  vessel,  II. 
182. 

Blome,  Richard,  cited,  II.  31,  55  n.,  81, 
82,  169,  246;  quoted,  55  n.,  129  n., 
183  n. 

Bombay,  granted  to  England,  I.  5. 

Bonds,  required  from  ships  in  colonial 
trade,  I.  73-74,  261-262,  II.  114; 
taken  from  vessels  loading  in  Massa- 
chusetts (1663),  II.  247. 

Book  of  Rates,  the,  I.  129. 

Boston,  account  of,  by  commission  of 
1664,  II.  245 ;  exports  of,  245-246. 

Boyle,  Robert,  quoted,  II.  250  n. 

Bradstreet,  Simon,  quoted,  I.  123,  II. 
283  n.;  elected  Governor  of  Massa- 
chusetts, II.  280;  contradicts  Ran- 
dolph as  to  extent  of  illegal  trade  in 
Massachusetts,  285-286;  quoted  on 
irregular  trading,  310;  requests  Ran- 
dolph not  to  take  action  in  England 
prejudicial  to  Massachusetts,  302. 

Brazil,  as  a  source  of  supply  of  sugar,  II. 
5  n.;  attempt  by  English  to  control 
sugar  trade  of,  5-6. 


I       Kf 


mm^ 


INDEX 


361 


Braziletto,  produced  in  the  Bahamas,  II. 

87. 
Brazilian  sugar,  shipments  of,  to  England 

affected  by  preferential  treatment  of 

colonial  products,  I.  150. 
Breda,  Treaty  of,  I.  184,  241 ;   terms  of, 

334,  II.  315-316. 
Breedon,  Captain  Thomas,  quoted,  II. 

232  n. ;  on  the  independence  of  views 

in  Massachusetts,  240. 
Brewster,  Sir  Francis,  quoted,  I.  23-24; 

cited,  58,  II.  227. 
Bridgeman,  William,  quoted,  I.  38  n. 
Bridges,  Thomas,  appointed  Governor 

of  the  Bahamas,  II.  88. 
Brouncker,  Henry,   member  of  special 

colonial  council,  I.  244. 
Bruce,  P.  A.,  cited,  I.  17  n.,  193,  298, 

368,   375,   II.    116,    128  n.,    143   n.; 

quoted,  I.  367  n. 
Bryce,  James,  quoted,  II.  137. 
Buccaneers,   West  Indian,   I.    121,   II. 

56  ff. ;   condemnation  of  booty  of,  by 

Jamaica   Admiralty    Court,   I.    304; 

attempted  suppression  of,  II.  63-64; 

South  Carolina  charged  with  harbor- 

ing,'i9i-i94. 

Bulkeley,  Peter,  agent  of  Massachusetts 
in  England,  II.  267,  271-273,  274  n. 

Burghill,  Francis,  II.  97. 

Burnet,  Bishop,  anecdote  by,  I.  4  n. 

Butler,  J.  D.,  cited,  I.  29. 

Byrd,  William,  Auditor  of  Virginia  ac- 
counts, I.  222  n.,  n.  159  n. 

Cabal  government,  the,  I.  240. 

Cacao,  importations  of,  to  England 
(1662-1663,  1668-1669),  I.  40  n.;  a 
staple  product  of  Jamaica,  II.  54; 
encouragement  of  industry,  55;  end 
of,  as  a  staple  product  of  Jamaica, 
79;  production  of,  in  the  Bahamas, 
87. 

Calvert,  Charles,  salary  paid  to,  by 
Treasury  department,  for  work  in 
connection  with  customs,  I.  276-277; 
on  purchase  of  slaves  in  Maryland, 
331  n.;  appointment  as  Governor  of 
Maryland,  II.  170.  See  Baltimore, 
Lord  (third). 

Calvin's  Case,  I.  90. 


Campeachy,  sack  of,  by  English  force,  I. 

328,  II.  57 ;  logwood  cutting  at,  II.  64. 
Canaries,  wines  of  the,  and  Acts  of  1660 

and  1663,  I.  78-79. 
Caribbee  Islands,  history  of  acquisition 

of  Crown  rights  in,  I.  171  ff. 
Carkesse,  cited,  I.  132  n.,  133  n. 
Carlisle,    Lord,    work    as    Governor    of 

Jamaica,  I.    211-214;    efforts  of,  to 

adjust  logwood-cutting  difficulties,  II. 

70-71. 

Carlisle  proprietary  rights  in  West 
Indies,  questions  rising  from,  I.  171  ff. 
Carolinas,  question  of  transportation  of 
Huguenots  to,  I.  27-28;  statistics  of 
trade  between  England  and,  42  n. ;  a 
colony  of  the  plantation  pattern,  55; 
exemption  of  certain  products  of,  from 
English  import  duties,  55-56;  in- 
ducements offered  to  settlers  in,  56  n. ; 
early  imimportance  of,  177;  economic 
aims  of  proprietors  of,  178  ff.;  plans 
for  settlement  of,  179-182;  population 
in  1682,  187;  products  of,  188-189; 
appointment  of  customs  officials  for, 
189-190.  See  North  Carolina  and 
South  Carolina. 

Carpenter,  article  by,  cited,  I.  71  n. 

Carpenter,  Henry,  Commissioner  of  Cus- 
toms in  Leeward  Islands,  I.  287. 

Carr,  Sir  Robert,  a  Commissioner  to 
visit  New  England,  II.  243. 

Carteret,  Sir  George,  member  of  com- 
mittee on  state  of  Jamaica,  I.  229  n.; 
a  member  of  Council  for  Foreign  Plan- 
tations, 232;  interested  in  African 
trading  company,  326. 

Carteret,  Philip,  as  Governor  of  East 
New  Jersey,  appointed  Collector  of 
Customs,  I.  279  n. 

Cartwright,  George,  a  Commissioner  to 
visit  New  England,  II.  243. 

Gary,  John,  quoted,  I.  6  n.,  24-25, 38-39, 
49-50,  56-57,  109,  III. 

Cedar  wood,  export  of  and  illegal  trade 
in,  from  Bermudas,  II.  91,  92;  vessels 
built  of,  102. 

Chalmers,  George,  cited,  I.  71  n.,  84  n., 
222  n.,  334,  372  n. 

Channel  Islands,  effect  of  policy  of  enu- 
meration on  trade  of,  I.  85  n.. 


I 


S 


: 


«*i^*^"?' 


■■i 


■H 


,,  ill 


I 


I' 


';> 


I 


I 


titi 


362 


INDEX 


Channing,  Edward,  errors  in  statements 

by,  I.  129  n.,  II.  262  n. 
Charles  II,  support  given  commercial  and 
colonial  interests  of  England  by,  I. 
3-5 ;  retention  of  Jamaica  and  Dun- 
kirk by,  and  Portuguese  marriage  of, 
4-5 ;  financial  difficulties  of,  resulting 
in  the  "Stop  of  the  Exchequer,"  147- 
148;  personal  investment  of,  in  Afri- 
can Companies,  325-327;  gifts  of  silk 
from  Virginia  to,  II.  127  n. 

Charies  Town,  settlement  at,  II.  181  ff. 

Child,  Sir  Josiah,  quoted  and  cited,  I. 
13,  17  n.,  34-35,  48,  56,  58;  a  staunch 
upholder  of  the  colonial  system,  107 
n. ;  a  patentee  of  Royal  African  Com- 
pany, 342. 

Clarendon,  Earl  of,  quoted,  I.  4,  35-36, 
102 ;  interest  of,  in  colonial  expansion, 
8;  appointed  to  Council  for  Foreign 
Plantations,  232;  on  effect  of  Council 
of  Trade,  239 ;  a  patentee  of  the  Caro- 
linas,  II.  178. 

Clarke,  Robert,  Governor  of  Bahamas, 
II.  89. 

Clayed  sugar,  I.  152  n.;  duties  imposed 
on,  by  tariff  of  1685,  164  n. 

CUfford,  Sir  Thomas,  member  of  Coimcil 
of  Trade  (1668),  I.  243. 

Cloth,  premiums  for  manufacture  of,  in 
Virginia,  II.  124,  127,  156. 

Coal,  export  duties  on  English,  I.  132  n. 

Coastwise  trade,  exclusion  of  foreign 
ships  from  English,  by  Navigation  Act 
of  1660,  I.  63. 

Cocoa-nuts,  question  of  duties  on,  I.  65 
n. ;  duties  on,  by  Act  of  1673,  81-82. 

Codrington,  Christopher,  quoted,  II.  27. 

Cohabitation  Act,  for  encouragement  of 
trade  and  manufacture  in  Virginia 
(1680),  II.  149,  151,  152. 

Coinage  of  money  in  Massachusetts,  II. 
294. 

Coke,  Roger,  quoted,  I.  22. 

Colbert,  duties  imposed  on  foreign  re- 
fined sugars  by,  I.  155  n. 

Collectors  of  the  customs,  colonial,  I. 
277-278. 

Colleton,  James,  Governor  of  the  Caro- 
linas,  II.  191,  193. 

Colleton,  Sir  John,  a  member  of  Council 


for  Foreign  Plantations,  I.  232,  237; 
interested  in  African  trading  company, 
326-327;  a  patentee  of  the  CaroUnas, 
II.  178. 

Colleton,  Sir  Peter,  I.  154,  165 ;  a  paten- 
tee of  Royal  African  Company,  342; 
member  of  Committee  of  Gentlemen 
Planters  in  England,  349;  endeavors 
to  secure  redress  for  grievances  of  Bar- 
bados, II.  14,  19;  quoted,  19;  on  a 
suitable  governor  for  Barbados,  27  n. 

Collins,  E.  D.,  cited,  I.  348  n.,  372,  377  n. 

Colonial  Council  of  1670,  I.  244  ff. 

Colonial  expansion,  held  to  be  a  subordi- 
nate part  of  movement  of  commercial 
progress,  I.  18  ff. ;  differing  opinions 
on  emigration  caused  by,  19  ff. 

Colonial  proprietors,  revenue  derived  by 
Crown  as  successor  to,  I.  171  ff. 

Colonial  system,  beginnings  of  English, 
under  the  Stuarts  and  Cromwell,  I.  2 ; 
expansion  of,  upon  the  Restoration, 

3ff. 
Colonies,  deportation  of  undesirables  to, 
I.  29-32;  general  character  of  emi- 
grants to,  during  Restoration  period, 
30-31 ;  supposed  economic  benefits  to 
England  from,  35  ff. ;  viewed  as  the 
economic  complements  of  the  mother 
country,  37-38;  more  stress  laid  upon 
as  sources  of  supply  than  as  markets 
for  goods,  38-39;  statistics  of  trade 
between  England  and,  in  Restoration 
period,  39-44;  division  of,  into  four 
classes,  45  n. ;  exclusion  of  foreign- 
built  ships  from  trade  with,  by  Naviga- 
tion Act  of  1660,  58  ff. ;  effect  of  Navi- 
gation Act  of  1660  on  shipping  of,  63- 
64 ;  relations  between  mother  country 
and,  as  result  of  theory  of  imperial 
defence,  108  ff.;  military  establish- 
ment in,  1 1 4-1 16;  defence  against 
buccaneers  and  pirates,  120-127;  pref- 
erential treatment  accorded  products 
of,  in  English  markets,  127;  benefits 
to,  from  preferential  treatment  of  prod- 
ucts, 132-137;  classification  into 
proprieties  and  royal  provinces,  202; 
fiscal  systems  of,  202  ff. ;  imperial  ad- 
ministrative machinery  for  governing 
the,  224  ff. ;   appointment  of  corps  of 


INDEX 


363 


customs  officials  for  the,  277-284 ;  con- 
flict of  authority  in,  a  defect  of  the  es- 
tablished administrative  system,  312- 
314 ;  division  of,  into  classes,  316-317 ; 
grouping  of,  according  to  capability  of 
development  as  new  sources  of  supply, 
317-320. 

Committee  for  Trade  and  Foreign  Plan- 
tations of  1675,  I.  256.  See  Lords  of 
Trade. 

Committee  for  Trade  and  Plantations, 
creation  of,  and  members,  I.  240- 
241. 

Committee  of  Gentlemen  Planters  of  Bar- 
bados in  London,  I.  47,  II.  14. 

Commissioners  of  the  Customs,  appoint- 
ment and  activities  of,  I.  276. 

Committee  system  in  imperial  adminis- 
trative machinery,  I.  228  ff. 

Company  of  Royal  Adventurers  trading 
to  Africa,  I.  326-327.  See  African 
Company. 

Comptroller  and  Surveyor  General,  office 
of,  I.  280. 

Connecticut,  charter  granted  to  (1662), 
II.  242 ;  royal  Commissioners  in,  244 ; 
trade  of,  245  n.,  326-327;  plan  to 
unite,  with  Massachusetts  and  other 
New  England  colonies,  323-324; 
Randolph's  charges  against,  and  issu- 
ance of  writs  of  quo  warranto,  324. 

Convicts,  deportation  of,  to  English 
colonies,  I.  29-30,  II.  52. 

Cony,  Richard,  Governor  of  Bermudas, 
II.  97-99- 

Cook,    Thomas,     Irish    shipowner,    I. 

301- 

Cooper,  Sir  A.  A.,  appointed  to  Council 
for  Foreign  Plantations,  I.  232.  See 
Shaftesbury. 

Corbett,  J.  S.,  cited  and  quoted,  I,  122, 
II.  140  n.,-523. 

Com  boimties  in  England,  I.  131  n. 

Cotton  or  cotton-wool,  imports  of,  to 
England,  I.  40  n. ;  limitations  on  co- 
lonial export  trade  in,  by  Navigation 
Act  of  1660,  72;  duties  on,  under 
Acts  of  1660  and  1673,  82  n. ;  import 
duties  on,  under  tariff  of  1660,  133 ; 
raised  in  Barbados,  II.  3  n.,  30;  ex- 
ported from  Leeward  Islands,  37 ;  pro- 


duced in  Jamaica,  54,  79-81 ;  first 
experiments  with,  in  the  Carolines, 
181. 

Council  for  Foreign  Plantations,  creation, 
composition,  and  work  of,  I.  231-234; 
end  of  activities  of,  in  1665,  239; 
deaUngs  of,  with  Massachusetts,  II. 
240-242 ;  claims  of  Mason  and  Gorges 
before,  252. 

Council  for  Trade  and  Plantations, 
created  (1672),  I.  247;  membership 
and  career  of,  247-254;  revocation  of 
commission  (1674),  254;  succeeded  by 
Lords  of  Trade,  256. 

Council  of  Trade,  creation,  composition, 
and  duties  of,  I.  234-235 ;  end  of,  in 
1664,  239;  appointment  of  a  new 
(1668),  243. 

Courts,  admiralty  and  vice-admiralty,  I. 
292  ff. 

Couty,  Rabba,  case  of  ship  owned  by,  I. 
300-301. 

Coventry,  Sir  Henry,  on  logwood  cutting 
in  Yucatan,  II.  68  n. 

Coventry,  Sir  William,  quoted,  I.  21-22. 

Co3anans,  firm  of,  I.  364  n. 

Cranfield,  Edward,  appointed  Commis- 
sioner of  Customs  in  Barbados,  I.  287 
n. ;  cited,  II.  70  n,,  84;  quoted,  263 
n. ;  on  importations  of  European 
goods  to  Massachusetts,  288  n. ;  on 
disloyal  spirit  at  Boston,  315  n. ;  ap- 
pointment as  Governor  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, 320;  quarrels  of,  with  leaders  of 
colony,  321;  departure  of,  from  New 
Hampshire,  322. 

Craven,  Earl  of,  quoted,  II.  192. 

Crofts,  Captain,  experiences  of,  on  Vir- 
ginia and  Maryland  station,  I.  311- 
313,  II.  163  ff. ;  on  difficulties  con- 
nected with  suppressing  illegal  trading, 
II.  164-165. 

Cromwell,  Oliver,  beginnings  of  English 
commercial  and  colonial  supremacy 
under,  I.  2 ;  union  of  England, 
Scotland,   and    Ireland    effected    by, 

85. 
Crown,  revenue  derived  by  English,  as 
successor   to   colonial   proprietors,   I. 
171  ff. ;   succeeds  to  rights  of  London 
Company  in  Virginia,  192. 


I 


I 


!H 


I 


I  i 


I 


11. 


Il 


WJ 


I  ' 


* 


I 


f!  t; 


364 


INDEX 


Crown  colonies,  fiscal  systems  of,  I.  202 
ff. ;   steady   increase   in   number  of, 
225-226. 
Crown  rights  and  royalties  among  colo- 
nies, I.  169. 
Cuba,   privateering   raids   on,    II.   60- 

61. 
Culpeper,  Lord,  quoted,  I.   117;    Vir- 
ginia grant  to,  by  Charles  II,  194,  II. 
131-132 ;  quoted  on  collection  of  quit- 
rents,  I.  195  n.,  197  n. ;   on  discrimi- 
nation   in    Virginia    against    English 
shipping,    206   n.;    vice-president   of 
Council  for  Trade  and  Plantations, 
248;    becomes  Governor  of  Virginia, 
II.    141;     cited,    ISO    n.;     supports 
plea  of  Virginia  for  cessation  of  to- 
bacco    planting,     150    n.,    151-152; 
intelligent  insight  by,  into  conditions 
in  Virginia,  152;    succeeded  as  Gov- 
ernor by  Lord  Howard  of  Efl5ngham, 
157;   on  the  Albemarle  Sound  settle- 
ment, 199;    mentioned  for  Governor 
of  New  England  colonies,  292. 
Culpepper,  John,  leader  of  North  Caro- 
lina rebellion,  II.  198. 
Cunningham,  quoted  and  cited,  I.  4, 

14  n.,  21,  235  n.,  239. 
Currey,  E.  H.,  cited,  I.  122. 
Customs,  Farmers  of  the,  I.  272-276; 
Commissioners  of  the,  276  ff.;  appoint- 
ment of  Collectors  of,  for  the  colonies, 
277-278. 
Customs    duties,    supposed    benefit    to 
England  from,  on  colonial   trade,  I. 
35-37;    error    in  reasoning  concern- 
ing, 3^37;   under  Navigation  Act  of 
1660,  58  ff. ;    increase  of,  by  Staple 
Act  of  1663,  77;   under  Act  of  1673, 
81-83;      on    negroes    imported    by 
Spanish  to  West  Indies,  129  n. ;    de- 
velopment of  dual  system  in  adminis- 
tration of,  291. 
Customs  oflScials,   compensation  of,   I. 
2S4-286 ;  difl&culties  over,  in  colonies, 
287  ff.,  IL  171,  280  ff. 
Cutt,  John,  IL  318,  320. 


Dampier,  William,  buccaneer,  II.  70. 
Danby,  Earl  of,  quoted,  I.  146  n. ;  rise 
of,  in  poUtical  world,  254. 


Danforth,  Thomas,  Deputy-Governor  of 

Massachusetts,  II.  302. 

Davenant,  Charles,  quoted  and  cited,  I. 

13  n.,  15  n.,  50-51,  106,  II.  295  n.; 

discussion  of  objections  to  colonies  by, 

L   26;    a  champion  of  the  colonial 

system,   107  n.;    appointment  of,  to 

office  of  Treasurer  of  Virginia,  193  n. 

Davies,  cited,  IL  3  n.,  32  ;  quoted,  48  n. 

Debtor  laws,  in  Barbados,  I.  347-348; 

in  the  Leeward  Islands,  352. 
Defence,  burden  of  imperial,  assumed  by 
England,  I.   108;    conclusions  as  to 
colonial  trade  resulting  from  theory, 
no  ff. ;    colonial   military  establish- 
ment  for,    1 14-120;     suppression   of 
West   Indian   buccaneers,    121;    im- 
munity secured  against  Barbary  cor- 
sairs, 122-127. 
Delaware,   reduction   of   Dutch   settle- 
ments   in,    II.    341;     acquisition    of 
region  by  English,  341-342. 
Denton,  Daniel,  cited,  II.  344. 
De  Ruyter,  Admiral,  acts  against  Eng- 

Ush  in  West  Africa,  I.  333. 
D'Ewes,  Sir  Simonds,  on  naval  stores 

from  New  England,  II.  231  n. 
Dickerson,  O.  M.,  cited,  I.  251. 
Digges,  Edward,  a  member  of  Council 
for  Foreign  Plantations,  I.  233,  237; 
appointed   to   represent   Farmers   of 
Customs  in   Virginia,   275;    receives 
appointment  from  Commissioners  of 
the  Customs,  276;   withdrawal  of,  on 
creation  of  office  of  Collector  of  Cus- 
toms, 278 ;  gift  of  silk  by,  to  the  King, 
IL  128  n. 
Diplomatic  service,  use  of,  in  execution 
of  laws  of  trade  and  navigation,  I.  259. 
Direct  taxation  of  colonies  by  Parlia- 
mentary duties  on  intercolonial  trade, 
I.  168. 
Dissenters,  English,  settle  in  the  Caro- 

linas,  II.  187. 
Dominion  of  New  England,  the,  I.  119, 
226,  IL  323,  324,  331  ff.;  New  York 
and  the  Jerseys  included  in,  II.  337, 
350-351;  dissolution  of,  351. 
Dongan,  Governor  of  New  York,  I.  201 ; 
quoted  concerning  Dyre,  282  n. ;  ves- 
sel of,  charged  with  illegal  trading  to 


}    ' 


INDEX 


365 


Virginia,  II.  164,  166-167;  cited  and 
quoted,  346,  349,  353- 

Dorrell,  John,  II.  86. 

Downing,  John,  petitions  for  establish- 
ment of  government  in  Newfoundland, 
II.  216-217. 
,  Downing,  Sir  George,  career  of,  and 
prominence  in  furthering  EngUsh  com- 
mercial expansion,  I.  9-1 1;  policy  of 
enumeration  devised  by,  71-73 ;  prom- 
inent in  enacting  legislation  affecting 
Irish  colonial  trade,  93  n. ;  a  member 
of  Council  for  Trade,  235;  member 
of  new  Council  of  Trade  (1668),  243; 
head  of  Commissioners  of  Customs, 
276;  cited,  333;  argues  against  relaxa- 
tion of  trade  regulations  in  favor  of 
Barbados,  II.  18-20. 

Doyley,  Edward,  CromwelUan  Governor 
of  Jamaica,  II.  50. 

Drawback  system  applied  to  English 
sugar  manufacturers,  I.  153. 

Drax,  Henry,  member  of  Committee  of 
Gentlemen  Planters  in  England,  I.  349. 

Drax,  Sir  James,  member  of  Council  for 
Foreign  Plantations,  I.  233,  237. 

Drugs,  from  Jamaica,  IL  54. 

Du  Bois,  W.  E.  B.,  cited,  I.  323. 

Dudley,  Joseph,  quoted,  II.  292  n. ;  sent 
to  England  as  agent  of  Massachusetts, 
293;  instructions  to,  293-296;  atti- 
tude taken  by,  on  loss  of  charter  by 
Massachusetts,  314  n. ;  entrusted  with 
temporary  governorship  of  Massachu- 
setts and  New  Hampshire,  323 ;  com- 
missioned Vice- Admiral,  330;  ad- 
ministration   of    New    England    by, 

331. 
Duke,  George,  secretary  of  Council  of 

Trade,  I.  239  n. 

Dumont,  cited,  I.  334. 

Dunkirk,  English  acquisition  and  reten- 
tion of,  I.  5. 

Dutch,  commercial  rivalry  between 
EngUsh  and,  I.  5-6,  7,  9;  effect  on, 
of  Navigation  Act  of  1660,  60-61 ; 
rivalry  of,  in  African  slave  trade,  325- 
326,  333 ;  end  of  rivalry  by  Treaty  of 
Breda,  334;  temporary  permission 
granted  to,  to  trade  to  New  York,  IL 
343. 


Dutch  West  India  Company,  I.  326. 

Duties,  exemption  of  products  of  Caro- 
linas  from  the  import,  I.  55-56;  ton- 
nage and  poundage,  under  Old  Sub- 
sidy, 1 29  ff . ;  preferential  treatment  of 
certain  imports  from  colonies,  132  ff. ; 
work  of  Treasury  in  enforcing  the 
plantation,  262-264;  import,  levied 
by  Virginia  on  liquors,  II.  163  n. ; 
collection  of,  in  North  Carolina,  195- 
197.    See  Customs  duties. 

Dutton,  Sir  Henry,  I.  300  n. 

Dutton,  Sir  Richard,  Governor  of  Bar- 
bados, I.  165,  191,  365  n.,  375;  on 
jealousy  of  Leeward  Islands  by  Bar- 
bados, IL  39. 

Dyeing-woods,  limitations  on  colonial 
export  trade  in,  by  Navigation  Act  of 
1660,  I.  72;  duties  on,  under  Acts  of 
1660  and  1673,  82  n. ;  produced  in 
Jamaica,  IL  54 ;  produced  in  the  Ba- 
hamas, 87. 

Dyre,  WilUam,  activities  of,  as  Surveyor 
General  of  Customs  in  American  colo- 
nies, I.  281-283,  II.  329;  complains  of 
being  arrested  in  performance  of 
duties,  II.  336;  commissioned  Col- 
lector of  revenue  in  New  York,  351  n. ; 
charges  against,  352. 

Eastchurch,  Thomas,  appointed  Gov- 
ernor of  North  Carolina,  II.  196- 
197. 

East  New  Jersey,  smuggling  from,  to 
New  York,  II.  347. 

Eleuthera,  settlement  of,  II.  85. 

Emigration,  1. 18  ff. ;  attitude  toward,  in 
Restoration  period,  19-23;  estimates 
of,  from  England  to  America,  28  n. ; 
evils  of,  concerning  indentured  ser- 
vants   and    contract    laborers,    32- 

34. 
Endicott,   Governor  of   Massachusetts, 

correspondence  of,  with  Restoration 
government,  IL  239-240. 
England,  attention  of,  directed  under 
Cromwell  toward  commercial  and 
colonial  expansion,  I.  2  ;  era  of  expan- 
sion beginning  with  the  Restoration, 
3 ;  feudal  acknowledgment  of  suze- 
rainty of,  by  proprietary  colonies,  169. 


I 


If 


I 


Ui 


!' 

r, 


ii 

Hi 


!  I 


I  I 


366 


INDEX 


English  Empire,  extent  of,  in  1660,  I. 
53;  nature  of  colonies  constituting 
the,  53-54. 

Enumeration,  policy  of,  I.  72-73;  in- 
conveniences and  inconsistencies  re- 
sulting from,  80  S. ;  difficulties  result- 
ing from  application  to  Ireland,  93  flf. ; 
preferential  treatment  of  colonial  prod- 
ucts as  an  ofiEset  to,  136  ff. ;  work  of 
the  Treasury  in  connection  with  en- 
forcement of,  260-264,  273;  objec- 
tions of  Barbados  to,  II.  3  ff.,  22  ff. ; 
comparatively  slight  complaint  against, 
in  Leeward  Islands,  45-46 ;  objections 
of  Massachusetts  to,  307-309. 

Ester,  case  of  seized  ship,  I.  302  n.,  307  n. 

Evelyn,  John,  quoted,  I.  5  n.,  11,  22  n., 
148,  248  n.,  249,  250  n.,  254,  II.  35 ; 
appointed  a  salaried  commissioner  of 
colonial  council,  I.  247;  quoted  con- 
cerning condition  of  New  England,  II. 
252,  253  n. 

Expectation,  case  of  the  ship,  II.  283, 
284. 

Export  duties.  Crown  revenue  from,  in 
Virginia,  I.  206. 

ExquemeUn,  history  of  buccaneers  by, 
II.  61  n. 

Exton,  Sir  Thomas,  opinion  of,  I.  302- 
303- 

Fanshaw,  Sir  Richard,  Ambassador  to 
Portugal,  II.  6. 

Farmers  of  Customs,  action  taken  by, 
concerning  illegal  trade  in  colonies,  I. 
272-276. 

Farming  of  four  and  a  half  per  cent 
revenue  in  Barbados  and  Leeward 
Islands,  I.  186-190. 

Ferrero,  G.,  cited,  II.  236. 

Finch,  Sir  John,  member  of  special 
colonial  council,  I.  244. 

Fiscal  systems  of  colonies,  I.  202  ff. 

Fisher,  H.  A.  L.,  cited,  I.  210. 

Fisheries,  importance  of  the  Newfound- 
land, II.  201 ;  size  of  fleet  engaged  in 
Newfoundland,  222  n.;  of  Massachu- 
setts, 245;  competition  of  New  Eng- 
land, with  those  of  Newfoundland, 
256 ;   of  New  York,  344,  345. 

Fiske,  John,  cited,  II.  139,  143. 


Fitzhugh,  William,  II.  158  n. 
Flax,  unsuccessful  attempt  to  produce, 
in  Virginia,  II.  124  ff.,  126,  128,  155- 
156. 

Foodstuffs,  export  duties  on,  under  Old 
Subsidy,  I.  131. 

Forfeiture  of  unfree  vessels  trading  to 
the  colonies,  I.  69-70;  Crown?s  share, 
in  case  of,  169,  1 70-1 71. 

Fortrey,  Samuel,  cited,  I.  20. 

Forts  of  Royal  African  Company  in 
West  Africa,  I.  369-370. 

France,  duties  imposed  on  foreign  re- 
fined sugars  by,  I.  155  n. ;  trade  regu- 
lations of,  compared  and  contrasted 
with  EngHsh  in  West  Indies,  II.  22- 
24,  32;  trade  to  Massachusetts  from, 
287 ;  dangers  from,  in  Newfoundland, 
205,  206,  227;  superiority  of  fisheries 
of,  to  EngUsh,  228-229;  dangers  to 
New  England  from,  237-238;  effect 
of  activity  of,  upon  attitude  of  Massa- 
chusetts on  loss  of  charter,  315-317. 

Frontier  spirit,  growth  of  the,  in  Vir- 
ginia, II.  135. 

Froude,  Philip,  secretary  of  Coimcil  for 
Foreign  Plantations,  I.  232  n.,  236, 
238  n. 

Fuller,  Sir  T.  E.,  cited,  II.  186. 

Furs,  imported  to  England  in  Restora- 
tion period,  I.  40  n. ;  exportation  of, 
from  Maryland,  II.  168-169;  from 
New  York,  344,  345,  346. 

Fustic,  imports  of,  I.  40  n. ;  colonial  ex- 
port duties  on,  under  Acts  of  1660 
and  1673,  72,  82  n.;  exported  from 
Jamaica,  II.  80. 

Gardner,  W.  J.,  cited,  I.  31  n. 

Garroway,  quoted,  I.  22. 

Gascoigne,    Stephen,    appointed    Chief 

Commissioner   of   customs   duties   in 

Barbados,  I.  286,  380. 
Gaul,  ancient,  analogy  between  case  of 

New  England  and,  II.  235-236. 
Genoese,    slaves    supplied    to    Spanish 

colonies  by,  I.  330. 
George,  Captain  of  frigate  stationed  at 

Boston,  II.  330-331. 
Gerbier,  Sir  Balthazar,  cited,  II.  47. 
Giesecke,  A.  A.,  cited,  II.  164  n. 


BMip< 


INDEX 


367 


Gillam,  Zachariah,  II.  198. 

Ginger,  imports  of,  to  England,  I.  40  n. ; 
limitations  on  colonial  export  trade 
in,  by  Navigation  Act  of  1660,  72; 
duties  on,  under  Acts  of  1660  and 
1673,  82  n.;  import  duties  on,  under 
tariff  of  1660,  133;  export  of,  from 
Barbados,  II.  30;  a  staple  crop  in  St. 
Kitts,  32;  exported  from  Leeward 
Islands,  37 ;  produced  in  Jamaica,  54, 
80,  81 ;  experiments  with,  in  the  Caro- 

linas,  181. 
Godolphin,  Sir  William,  attitude  and  ad- 
vice of,  on  logwood  business,  II.  66  67. 
Good  Intention,  case  of  the  ship,  I.  303  n. 
Goodrick,  cited,  I.  80  n.,  162  n.,  170,  221 
n.,  282  n.,  283,  II.  264  n.,  275,  276, 
277,  288  n.,  291,  292,  320  ff.,  351; 
quoted,  II.  287  n.,  288  n. 
Gorges,  Ferdinando,  on  colonization  of 
the  West  Indies,  I.  47-48;  member  of 
Committee  of  Gentlemen  Planters  in 
London,    154;     member    of    special 
colonial  council,  244 ;  mentioned,  335 ; 
a  patentee  of  Royal  African  Company, 
342;    memorial  on  condition  of  Bar- 
bados by  (1673),  II.  15;  claims  of,  to 
Maine,  and  refusal  of  Massachusetts 
to  recognize,  251-252,  259-260,  264; 
claims  of,  bought  by  Massachusetts 
for  £1250,  278,  280. 
Governors,    colonial,    salaries    of,    and 
revenue  for  payment,  I.  203-205,  208- 
209,  211  n.;  duties  of  royal,  in  execu- 
tion of  laws  of  trade,  264-265;    re- 
missness of  proprietary  and  charter, 
in  obeying  laws  of  trade,  265-267. 
Grain,  English  import  duties  on,  I.  134- 
135 ;  production  of,  in  Maryland,  II. 
169;  exported  from  New  York,  345. 
Granadilla,  imports  of,  to  England,  I. 

40  n. 
Greenland  whale  fishery,  encouragement 

of,  I.  63  n. 
Grew,  N.,  cited  and  quoted,  1. 18  n.,  35  n. 
Grey,     Thomas,     member     of     special 

colonial  council,  I.  244. 
Guinea  Company,  the,  I.  323. 

Hall,  Jacob,  buccaneer,  II.  192. 
Halstead,  Captain,  II.  182-183. 


Hamlin,  John,  French  pirate,  II.  73- 
Haring,  C.  H.,  cited,  I.  69,  328,  II.  56, 

57,  192. 
Harris,  F.  R.,  cited,  II.   233  n.,   234, 

237  n-,  253  n.  .  e         .' 

Harris,  William,  I.  123  n.;   mformation 
by,  on  trade  of  New  England,  II.  261  n. 
Haversham,  Lord,  quoted,  I.  16. 
Hemp,  Act  for  making  planting  of,  in 

Virginia  obligatory,  II.  15S-156. 
Hening,  cited  and  quoted,  I.  204,  206, 

IL  112,  113,  124  ff-,  147  n.,  148  ff-, 

163  n.,  200. 
Heydon,  Sir  John,  Governor  and  customs 

collector  in  Bermudas,  I.  279,  II.  92- 
Hickeringill,  E.,  cited,  II.  55- 
Hides,  exported  from  Jamaica,  II.  80, 

81;    prohibition   of    exportation   of, 

from  Virginia  (1682),  155. 
Hispaniola,  importation  of  commodities 

from,  to  Jamaica,  II.  85. 
Holden,  Robert,  Collector  of  Customs  in 

North  CaroUna,  II.   199;    on  iUegal 

trade  in  Massachusetts,  285. 
Holland,  trade  to  Massachusetts  from, 

II.  287. 
Holies,  Denzill,  member  of  committee  on 

state  of  Jamaica,  I.  230  n.;    quoted, 

334  ^^ 

Holmes,  Sir  Robert,  1. 121,  326;  protec- 
tion of  English  slave  trade  by,  332-333- 

Hondiuras,  logwood  trade  from,  II.  7Si 

77  ^^ 
Hooke,  Sir  Humphrey,  lease  of  Virginia 

territory  to,  II.  130- 

Horses,  special  provisions  concerning, 
in  Act  of  1663,  I.  78;  export  duties 
on,  under  Old  Subsidy,  132  n.;  im- 
ported into  Barbados,  II.  31,  245 ;  im- 
ported into  Leeward  Islands,  38; 
among  exports  of  Rhode  Island  and 
Connecticut,  326. 

Howard,  G.  E.,  cited,  II.  i35- 

Howard  of  Effingham,  Lord,  Governor  of 
Virginia,  I.  196,  198,  31°,  H-  ^56,  i57 ; 
disputes  of,  with  Captains  Allen  and 
Crofts,  I.  311-312,  II.  164-167; 
troubles  of,  over  illegal  trading,  II. 
159,  162  ff. 

Hudson,  Henry,  on  causes  of  North 
Carolina  rebellion,  II.  197  n. 


LH 


I 


(. 


I 


1     ! 


^1 


it 


368 


INDEX 


Hudson's  Bay  Company,  founded  by 
Prince  Rupert,  I.  6;  favor  shown  to, 
in  matter  of  export  duties,  133  n 

Hughson,  S.  C,  cited,  II.  74,  193. 

Huguenots,  matter  of  transportation  of, 
to  Carolina,  I.  27-28;  as  settlers  in 
the  Carolinas,  II.  187,  188. 

Hunter,  Sir  W.  W.,  quoted,  I.  346. 


Immigration    to    England,    attitude   of 

Restoration  statesmen  as  to,  I.  20-23. 
Indentured  servants,  abuses  pertaining 

to  traffic  in,  I.  32-34. 
Indian  com  in  Barbados,  II.  31  n. 
Indians,  precipitation  of  political  crisis 

in  Virginia  from  uprising  of,  II.  137; 

estabUshment    of    rational    relations 

with,  142. 

Indigo,  imports  of,  to  England,  I.  40  n. ; 
produced  in  Jamaica,  54,  II.  79-81,' 
limitations  on  colonial  export  trade  in, 
by  Navigation  Act  of   1660,   I.    72; 
duties  on,  under  Acts  of  1660  and  1673' 
^2  n.,  133 ;  advantage  to  producers  of,' 
from  preferential  treatment,  136 ;  ex- 
port of,  from  Barbados,  II.  30;   pro- 
duced in  Leeward  Islands,  37. 
Intercolonial  trade,  Pariiamentary  taxa- 
tion of,  I.  168. 
Ireland,  emigration  from,  to  the  colonies 
encouraged,  I.  31 ;   effects  on  colonial 
trade  of,  of  Navigation  Acts  of  1660, 
1663,  and  1673,  91  ff. ;   results  of  ap- 
plication to,  of  Act  of  1671,  101-104;  I 
English  import  duties  directed  against^  | 
13s ;   prohibition  of  production  of  to- 
bacco in,  138,  139;  imports  to  Bar- 
bados from,  II.  31 ;    imports  to  Lee- 
ward Islands  from,   38;    imports  to 
Jamaica  from,  82 ;  trade  between  Vir- 
ginia and,  129;    provisions  for  New- 
foundland fishing  fleet  bought  in,  222, 
224;  trade  to  Massachusetts  from, 287 
Insh  in  Barbados,  II.  n  n.,  13. 
Iron  and  iron-works  of  New  England, 

IL  244,  261,  266. 
Isle  of  Man,  effect  of  Navigation  Acts 
on  trade  of,  I.  85  n. 

Jamaica,   acquired   under   Interregnum 
government,  I.   2;    retention  of,  by 


Restoration    government,    4-5,    227* 
convicts  transported  to,  30;    emigra- 
tion to,  encouraged,  31  n.;    customs 
paid  on  goods  from  (1676-1677),  2>7  n. ; 
statistics  of  trade   between   England 
and,  42  n.,  43;    arguments  for  colo- 
nization of,  I.  45-46 ;  rise  of,  to  wealth 
and  prosperity,  55 ;  seizure  of  foreign- 
built  ships  trading  to,  68-70;    mili- 
tary force  stationed  in,  114-115;   op- 
position  in,    to   impost   of    1685   on 
sugar,  163 ;  development  of,  a  favorite 
colonial  project,  208,  II.  49  ff. ;  efforts 
to  create  an  independent  revenue  in, 
I.  208  ff. ;   attempt  to  introduce  Poy- 
nings'  system  of  legislation  into,  210- 
214;    officials  and  military  estabUsh- 
ment in,  in  1679,  215  n.;    legislative 
measures  concerning  revenue  bills  in, 
215-220;    basis  of  a  permanently  es- 
tabHshed  revenue  finally  laid  in,  220; 
question  of  logwood  trade  from,   to 
Campeachy,  250,  251-252;  position  of 
Naval    Officer    of,    271;     Admiralty 
Court  of,  301,  304;   slaves  in,  320  ff.; 
forces  from,  attack  Santiago  and  Cam- 
peachy,  328;   dissatisfaction  in,  with 
Royal  African  Company  over  supply 
of  slaves,  353  ff. ;   trouble  over  use  of 
light  Spanish  money  in,  357-358 ;  diffi- 
culties of  Royal  African  Company  with 
interloping  traders  to,  zn-Z1^\    re- 
tention  of,    as   proof   of   interest   of 
Restoration   government   in    tropical 
colonization,  II.  47-48 ;   large  area  of, 
48;    sHght  progress  of,  during  Inter- 
regnum, 48-49 ;  appointment  of  Lord 
Windsor  as  Governor,  50;  population 
m  1664  and  1670,  53  n. ;   progress  of, 
under  Modyford's  administration,  53- 
54;    chief  products  of,  54;    develop- 
ment of  cacao  and  sugar  industries  in, 
55-56;     privateering    from,     56-59; 
losses  of,   through  privateers  turned 
pirates,  72-74;  no  complaints  against 
laws  of  trade  and  navigation  from,  83 ; 
small  amount  of  illegal  trading  in,  84; 
request  of  Bahamas  to  be  joined  to. 
88.  ' 

Jamaica  Act,  fixing  price  of  slaves,  L 
355,  358;   repeal  of,  359. 


■JllMJI 


I 

•"I 


ill 


INDEX 


369 


James  II,  early  commercial  and  colonial 
interests  of,  I.  6-7. 

Jeffreys,  Herbert,  appointed  Commis- 
sioner and  Lieutenant-Governor  of 
Virginia,  II.  140-141. 

Jeffreys,  Judge,  on  Bermudas  as  a  strate- 
gic point,  II.  103. 

Jenkins,  Sir  Leoline,  on  withdrawal  of 
English  settlers  from  Newfoundland, 
IL  211  n. 

Jersey,  Island  of,  effect  of  policy  of  enu- 
meration on  trade  of,  I.  85  n. 

Jerseys,  the  (East  and  West  Jersey), 
union  of,  with  New  York,  I.  226;  in- 
cluded within  Dominion  of  New  Eng- 
land, II.  337;  smuggling  from,  347. 

Jews,  special  licensing  of  three,  to  reside 
in  English  colonies,  I.  104  n. 

Johnson,  Sir  Nathaniel,  Governor  of 
Leeward  Islands,  I.  117,  376,  II.  43. 

Jones,  Captain,  on  trade  of  New  England 
to  Newfoundland,  II.  226-227;  on 
superiority  of  French  fisheries  in  New- 
foundland, 228. 

Katherine,  Dongan's  trading  vessel,  II. 

164,  166-167. 
Kendall,  Thomas,  a  member  of  Council 

for  Foreign  Plantations,  I.  233,  237. 
Keyen,  Otto,  cited,  IL  47. 
Kidnapping  of  emigrants  for  American 

colonies,  I.  33. 
Kimball,  cited,  II.  290  n. 
King  Philip's  War,  IL  145. 
Kinnoul  annuity  from  Barbados,  I.  175- 

176,  192. 
Kirke,   Colonel  Percy,  escape  of  New 

England  from  governorship  of,  II.  323. 
Kirke,   Sir   David,   Governor  of  New- 
foundland, II.  205. 
Kirkes,  claims  of,  to  Newfoimdland,  I. 

227. 
Knight,  Sir  John,  on  desire  of  Virginia 

planters  for  free  trade,  II.  115-116. 
Kyrle,  Sir  Richard,  Governor  of  South 

Carolina,  IL  193. 

Land  grants,  difficulties  over  Virginia, 

I.  194-199,  IL  130  ff. 
Langford,   Abraham,   Naval  Officer  of 

Barbados,  I.  270. 

2B 


Laut,  A.  C,  cited,  I.  6,  II.  198. 

Laws  of  trade  and  navigation,  of  Res- 
toration period,  I.  58  ff. ;  execution 
of,  by  boards  and  committees  of  Privy 
Council,  259-260;  duties  of  colonial 
governors  relative  to,  264-265;  po- 
Utical  unrest  in  Virginia  in  connection 
with,  IL  143  ff . ;  conclusions  as  to  part 
played  by,  in  upheaval  of  1676  in 
Virginia,  147;  violations  of,  in  Vir- 
ginia, 159  ff. ;  Newfoundland  and  the, 
221  ff. ;  grounds  of  Massachusetts* 
objections  to,  307-312;  improved  en- 
forcement of,  in  New  England,  333- 
334 ;  temporary  relaxation  of,  in  favor 
of  Dutch  trading  to  New  York,  343; 
enforcement  of,  in  New  York,  351  ff. 

Leeward  Islands,  military  establishment 
in,  I.  115  n. ;  laws  passed  by,  granting 
four  and  a  half  per  cent  export  duties, 
180;  question  of  separate  government 
for,  250;  temporary  suspension  of 
Navigation  Acts  in,  during  Dutch  war, 
274  n. ;  corps  of  customs  officials  in, 
286-287;  slaves  in,  320  ff.;  disputes 
between  Royal  African  Company  and, 
over  supply  of  slaves,  351-352;  trade 
of  illicit  slave  dealers  to,  375-376; 
backwardness  in  development  of,  in 
1660,  II.  31  ff. ;  economic  development 
of,  retarded  by  laws  of  trade,  32-^^ ; 
disastrous  effects  on,  of  Dutch  and 
French  war,  33-34;  created  a  sepa- 
rate jurisdiction  from  Barbados,  34; 
population  of,  1671-1678,  36;  chief 
exports  and  imports  of,  37-38;  illegal 
trading  in,  39  ff. ;  efforts  of  Wheler 
and  Stapleton  to  enforce  laws  of  trade, 
40-43 ;  great  need  in,  of  slaves  and 
white  servants,  46. 

Lefroy,  cited,  I.  199,  II.  91,  92,  180. 

Leighton,  Sir  Ellis,  secretary  of  English 
African  Company,  quoted,  I.  337-338. 

Leverett,  Governor  of  Massachusetts,  I, 
371  n. ;  as  agent  for  Massachusetts, 
called  before  Council  for  Foreign  Plan- 
tations, II.  241 ;  correspondence  be- 
tv/een  Major  Thomson  and,  257  n.; 
quoted  by  Randolph,  267 ;  deposed 
.  from  governorship,  280. 

Lewin,  John,  II.  351  n.,  352,  353. 


;n 


1 


II 


vh 


I     J      !-'! 


370 


INDEX 


Lignum-vitae,  imports  of,  to  England,  I. 

40  n. 
Ligon,  Richard,  cited,  I.  337  n.,  II.  2  n. 
Lilburae,  Robert,  Governor  of  the  Ba- 
hamas, II.  88  n.,  89. 
Linage,  J.  de  V.,  cited,  I.  364. 
Liquors,  import  duties  on,  in  Virginia, 
II.   163;    troubles  over  collection  of 
duties  on,  164-167;    illegal  trade  in, 
centring  in  Newfoundland,  222-224. 
Lloyd,  Dr.  Richard,  I.  373. 
Locke,  John,  clerk  and  later  secretary  of 
Council  for  Trade  and  Plantations,  I. 
248. 
Lodge,  cited,  I.  21. 

Logwood,  duties  on,  under  Acts  of  1660 
and  1673,  L  82  n.;  revenue  from, 
granted  to  Nell  Gwyn  by  Charles  II, 
82  n.;  Jamaica  trade  in,  to  Cam- 
peachy,  I.  250,  251-252,  IL  64,  65 ;  dis- 
pute with  Spanish  over,  I.  360-361; 
mmiber  of  Jamaica  ships  engaged  in, 
II.  65 ;  continuance  of  trade,  in  1681, 
74-75;  strong  position  acquired  by 
New  Englanders  in  this  trade,  256. 
London,  foreign  trade  of,  at  period  of 

Restoration,  I.  14,  15. 
London  Company,  rights  of,  in  Virginia 

succeeded  to  by  Crown,  I.  192. 
Lords  of  Trade,  creation  of  committee 
known  as  the,  I.   256;    character  of 
committee,  membership,  and  duration, 
256-258. 
"Lost  Lady,  The,"  Governor  Berkeley's 

drama,  II.  134. 
Lovelace,    Francis,    Governor   of   New 
York,  on  the  prosperity  ni  the  colony, 
n.  344- 
Lucas,  C.  P.,  cited,  I.  6,  322,  II.  85,  198, 
316  n. 

Ludwell,  Thomas,  Secretary  of  Virginia, 
quoted,  IL  123  n.,  124,  126, 131, 161. 

Lumber,  importation  of,  to  Barbados 
IL  31. 

Lynch,  Sir  Thomas,  Governor  of  Ja- 
maica, I.  208  n.,  209,  360,  361,  362, 
363;  quoted,  213  n.,  217-219;  reap- 
pointed Governor  of  Jamaica  in  1681, 
216-217;  perpetual  revenue  not 
deemed  essential  by,  218;  complaints 
of,   against    Council   for   Trade   and 


Plantations,  251-252;  on  negro  slaves, 
320;    on  trade  of  English  to  Spanish 
colonies,  with  slaves,  330;   on  supply 
of  slaves  in  Jamaica,  356  n.,  358;  on 
apparently    flourishing    condition    of 
Barbados  in  1671,  II.  29  n.;  on  hope- 
less condition  of  Leeward  Islands,  34  n. ; 
cited,  52  n.,  53  n. ;  attempted  suppres- 
sion of  privateering  by,  63-64;   diffi- 
culties of,   over  logwood   cutting  in 
Spanish  territory,  75  ff. ;  as  Governor 
in  1 681,  attempts  to  curb  West  Indian 
pirates,  72-74;  quoted  on  retreats  for 
pirates  among  American  colonies,  74  n. ; 
on  products  of  Jamaica  in  1672,  79. 
Lyttelton,  Sir  Charles,  Deputy-Governor 
of  Jamaica,  I.  328,  II.  51. 


McCrady,  E.,  cited,  II.  43,  90, 181, 187. 
McFarland,  R.,  cited,  II.  316  n. 
McGovney,  D.  O.,  cited,  I.  62  n. 
Mcllwain,  C.  H.,  cited,  I.  91. 
Madagascar,  trade  in  negroes  from,  I. 

3747375- 
Madeiras,  provisions  concerning  wine  of 

the,  in  Act  of  1663,  L  78. 
Magazine  ship  of  Bermuda  Company, 

II.  90. 
Maine,  claim  of  Gorges  to,  II.  251  flf.; 
stress  laid  by  Gorges  upon  economic 
value  of,  to  the  Empire,  254;    Eng- 
Ush  judges  decide  that  Massachusetts 
has  no  jurisdiction  over,  271 ;    claims 
of  Gorges  bought  by  Massachusetts, 
278;  Massachusetts  disregards  King's 
demand   for   surrender   of,    280;    in- 
cluded in  one  government  with  other 
New  England  colonies,  318. 
Manchester,  Earl  of,  member  of  Com- 
mittee of  Privy  Council,  I.  228;    ap- 
pointed to  Council  for  Foreign  Plan- 
tations, 232. 
Maracaibo,  sacked  by  buccaneers,  II.  61. 
Marlborough,   Earl   of,   interest   of,   in 

colonization  of  Jamaica,  II.  49. 
Martyn,  Richard,  II.  320,  321. 
Maryland,  statistics  of  trade  between 
England  and,  I.  42  n. ;  difficulties  over 
custonis  duties  in,  98-100;  Calvert's 
work  in  connection  with  customs  in, 
275-276;    admiralty   court   in,    296; 


-T— **^r» 


lit 


INDEX 


371 


slow  expansion  of  slavery  in,  367; 
policy  of  English  government  toward 
tobacco  industry  in,  II.  104  fE. ;  in- 
cluded in  Virginia's  plan  to  curtail 
production  of  tobacco  (1661),  117, 121 ; 
fails  to  agree  on  date  for  cessation  of 
tobacco  planting,  1 21-122;  economic 
development  of,  as  a  tobacco  colony, 
167-168;  character  of  trade  of,  168- 
169;  character  of,  as  a  proprietary 
colony,  169;  appointment  of  customs 
officials  in,  an  inroad  on  proprietor's 
jurisdiction,  169-170;  troubles  of  cus- 
toms officials  in,  170-175;  violations 
of  law  of  trade  and  navigation  not 
extensive  in,  175-176. 

Mason,  Robert,  memorial  by,  I.  108; 
controversy  between  Massachusetts 
authorities  and,  over  claims  to  New 
Hampshire,  II.  251-252,  259-260. 

Massachusetts,  contribution  of,  to  Bar- 
badian expedition,  I.  113 ;  trial  of  ad- 
miralty cases  in,  296-297;  negroes 
from  Madagascar  brought  to,  374  n. ; 
suspicious  view  held  by,  of  the  imperial 
relation,  II.  237  ff. ;  forces  which 
comi)elled  allegiance  to  restored  mon- 
archy, 237-238;  complaints  against 
spirit  of,  received  by  home  government, 
240;  vaUdity  of  charter  confirmed, 
242;  report  of  royal  Commissioners 
concerning,  245-246;  ships  of,  in 
1665,  246;  inquiry  of  royal  Commis- 
sion into  violations  of  Navigation  Act 
in,  247-248 ;  report  of  Commission  on 
political  questions  concerning,  250- 
251 ;  claims  of  Mason  and  Gorges 
attract  fresh  attention  to,  251  ff. ; 
irregular  trading  from,  and  resultant 
dangers  to  integrity  of  colonial  sys- 
tem, 255-261 ;  ordered  by  King  to 
send  agents  to  London  to  answer 
claims  of  Mason  and  Gorges,  260; 
Randolph's  detailed  report  concern- 
ing, 265-267 ;  beginnings  of  movement 
to  abrogate  charter  of,  269-270;  sig- 
nificance of  Randolph's  appointment 
as  Collector  of  Customs,  277;  un- 
popularity and  difficulties  of  Ran- 
dolph in,  280  ff . ;  extent  of  illegal  trade 
in,  285-288;   hatred  of  Randolph  in, 


as  an  unasked-for  representative  of  the 
home  government,  289 ;  fresh  charges 
by  Randolph  against,  on  his  return  to 
England,  290-292 ;  King's  rebuke  to, 
for  treatment  of  Randolph  and  neg- 
lect to  send  agents  to  England,  293; 
the  Naval  Office  Act,  296-301 ;  char- 
ter of,  annulled,  304;  abrogation  of 
charter  the  only  alternative  to  com- 
plete severance  of  political  ties  with 
England,  304-313 ;  attitude  of,  on  loss 
of  charter,  314-318;  reports  of  illegal 
trading  in,  from  1683  to  1686,  329; 
imited  with  other  New  England  colo- 
nies under  one  government,  318-319; 
admiralty  court  erected  in  and  frigate 
stationed  at,  329-330;  a  part  of  the 
short-lived  Dominion  of  New  England, 

337- 

Masts,  gift  of,  from  Massachusetts  to 
Royal  Navy,  I.  113,  II.  249;  supply 
of,  reported  available  in  Maine  and 
New  Hampshire,  II.  254-255. 

Mather,  Cotton,  II.  290  n. 

Maverick,  Samuel,  a  Conmiissioner  to 
visit  New  England,  II.  243 ;   quoted, 

339  n- 
Mein,     Patrick,    Surveyor  General     of 

Customs  in  American  colonies,  I.  283- 

284;  cited,  311  n.;  on  observation  of 

trade  laws  in  Maryland,  IL  176. 

MiHtary  establishment,  colonial,  I.  114- 
120;  in  Jamaica  in  1679,  215  n. 

Miller,  Thomas,  Collector  of  Customs  in 
North  Carolina,  I.  279,  II.  196-197. 

Mims,  S.  L.,  cited,  I.  69  n.,  156  n.,  343  n., 
II.  23  n.,  38  n.,  311  n. ;  quoted,  II. 
40  n. 

Mint,  the  Massachusetts,  II.  294  n. 

Misselden,  cited,  I.  14  n. 

Mocenigo,  Pietro,  quoted,  I.  18  n. 

Modyford,  Sir  Thomas,  appointed  Gov- 
ernor of  Jamaica,  I.  329-330,  II.  52; 
once  an  agent  of  the  Royal  African 
Company,  I.  380-381;  progress  of 
Jamaica  under  administration  of,  II. 
53-54;  difficulties  of,  over  privateer- 
ing from  Jamaica,  56  ff. ;  letters  of 
marque  issued  by,  58-59;  quoted, 
61  n.;  dismissed  and  imprisoned  for 
permitting  privateering,  62. 


I 


1; 


I 


«i 


'» 


^'•■^  wm'  » -  ' 


) 


f 


1 

I 

1 
1 

^     1 

V 

■  1 

1 

I 

i 

i 

■ 

'  i  ■ 

il 

I 


,'J 
I  I 


I 


372 


INDEX 


Molasses,  export  of,  from  Barbados,  n 
30,  31. 

Molesworth,  Render,  quoted,  I.  163, 166, 
356  n.;  in  charge  of  Jamaica  on 
Lynch's  death,  363;  quoted  on 
Spanish  trade  in  slaves  to  West  Indies, 
3^3  n.;  attacks  on  pohcy  of,  in  en- 
couraging Spanish  slave-trade,  364- 
366;  seizure  of  illegal  logwood  trader 
by,  II.  75. 

Money,  use  of  hght  Spanish,  in  Jamaica, 

I-  357-358;  current  in  Massachusetts, 
II.  294  n, 

Montserrat,  statistics  of  trade  between 
England  and,  I.  42  n. ;   condition  of, 
m    1671,    II.    35-36.    See    Leeward 
Islands. 
Morgan,   Su-  Henry,   Deputy-Governor 
•     of  Jamaica,  I.  118,  215-216,  306-307; 
quoted,  356  n.;    cited,  377;    severe 
mjunes  mflicted  on  Spanish  by  (1668- 
1671),     II.     60-62;      honored     and 
knighted,  62;   work  as  Deputy-Gov- 
ernor of  Jamaica,  72  n. 
Morice,  Secretary  of  State  and  member 
of  Committee  of  Privy  Council,  I.  229. 
Morley,  John,  cited,  I.  85. 
Morton,    Joseph,    Governor    of    South 

Carolina,  II.  190,  193. 
Moryson,  Francis,  agent  of  Virginia  in 
England,  II.   132;    sent- as  commis- 
sioner to  Virginia,  140. 
Mulberry  trees,  obUgatory  planting  of, 

in  Virginia,  II.  124,  127. 
Murray,  A.  E.,  quoted,  I.  94  n.;   cited, 

^35- 
Muschamp,   George,   CoUector  of  Cus- 
toms m  South  Carolina,  II.  189-191. 
Muscovado  sugar,  I.  151  n.;  duties  im- 
posed on,  by  bill  of  1685,  161. 
Muscovy  Company,  the,  II.  152. 
Myers,  A.  C,  cited,  I.  20,  23  n.,  36,  55, 
322,  II.  S3^  n. 


Nagle,  Richard,  Commissioner  of  Cus- 
toms in  Leeward  Islands,  I.  287. 

Naturahzation  laws  passed  by  colonies 
I.  70.  ' 

Naval  Office  Act  in  Massachusetts,  I. 
268  n.,  II.  296  ff. ;  questioning  of,  by 
Randolph,  IL  297-298;  objectionable 


clauses  in,   299;    as  an  obstacle  in 
Randolph's  way,  299-301. 
Naval  Officers,  position  of,  in  colonial 
administrative    system,    I.    267    ff.; 
practice  concerning  appointment  of' 
269-272;  remuneration  of,  272. 
Naval  stores.  New  England  as  a  source 
of,  I.  245-246,  IL  231 ;  report  of  royal 
Commission  of  1664  concerning,  IL 
246;    reports  to  imperial  govemiiient 
as  to,  in  Maine  and  New  Hampshire 
254-255.  * 

Navigation  Act  of  1650,  I.  2,  12,  60. 
Navigation  Act  of  1651,  I.  2,  12,  61. 
Navigation  Act  of  1660,  importance  of, 
realized  by  Enghsh  statesmen,  I.  12- 
13;    passage  of,  58;    significance  of, 
regarding  Dutch  rivals,  60-61;    pro- 
visions affecting  England's  European 
trade,  61-63;    effect  on  shipping  of 
colonies,  63-64;   provisions  regarding 
non-Enghsh  parts  of  America,  Africa, 
and  Asia,   64;    provisions  regarding 
colonial  trade  proper,  65  ff. ;  provision 
confining    colonial    export    trade   to 
England,  Ireland,  or  some  other  Eng- 
lish colony,  71-74 ;  extended  by  Staple 
Act  of  1663,  76-79;  provisions  affect- 
mg  trade  between  Scotland  and  colo- 
nies, 85  ff. 

Na^agation  Act  of  1673,  I-  81-84. 
Navigation  Acts,  machinery  for  adminis- 
tration of,  I.  259  ff. ;  appUcation  of,  to 
Virginia,  and  criticisms  of  policy,  IL 
105-115;    not    responsible    for  '  the 
pohtical  disturbances  in  Virginia,  143 
ff. ;   steps  taken  by  Massachusetts  to 
make   effective,    247.     See   Laws  of 
trade  and  navigation. 
Navy,  interest  of  James  II  in,  I.  7;  ad- 
vance of,  after  passage  of  Navigation 
Act  of  1660,  13;   numbers  of  men  in 
English,  in  peace  and  in  war,  105  n. ; 
use  of,   in   capturing  illegal   trading 
vessels,  308-314. 
Negroes.    See  Slaves. 
Nevis,  statistics  of  trade  between  Eng- 
land and,  I.  42  n. ;   Admiralty  Court 
o/>  299,  302,  303,  310;  illegal  importa- 
tions of  slaves  to,  376;    protest  of, 
against  laws  of  trade  and  navigation, 


INDEX 


373 


II.  32 ;  chief  centre  of  trade  in  Leeward 
Islands,  35.    See  Leeward  Islands. 

New  Amsterdam,  surrender  of,  to  Eng- 
lish, IL  341. 

New  England,  statistics  of  trade  be- 
tween England  and,  I.  42 ;  arguments 
advanced  against  colonization  of, 
45-46, 48  ff. ;  advantages  from  colonies 
in,  50-51 ;  in  general  not  adapted  to 
English  colonial  scheme,  51-53,  IL 
231,  234-235;  recalcitrant  attitude  of, 
toward  imperial  control,  I.  108-109, 
IL  236  ff. ;  imports  to  England  from, 
not  accorded  preferential  treatment,  I. 
134;  brief  union  of,  with  New  York 
and  the  Jerseys  under  one  government 
(Dominion  of  New  England),  226,  II. 
337;  hopes  for,  as  a  source  of  naval 
stores,  I.  245-246;  II.  231;  attention 
paid  to,  by  Council  for  Trade  and 
Plantations,  I.  250;  naval  offices 
established  in  (1682),  268  n.,  IL  296; 
illegal  slave  trade  by  ships  of,  I.  371 ; 
negroes  from  Madagascar  in,  374  n. ; 
imports  to  Leeward  Islands  from,  IL 
38;  provisions  imported  to  Jamaica 
from,  54 ;  ships  from,  engaged  in  log- 
wood trade,  70;  trade  of,  to  Ber- 
mudas, 93 ;  illegal  trading  to  Virginia 
by  vessels  of,  160;  close  commercial 
relations  of,  with  North  Carolina,  195- 
196,  198,  200 ;  trade  of,  to  Newfound- 
Isiiid,  223,  224,  225-227;  difference 
between,  and  other  colonies,  231; 
main  economic  advantage  of,  to  mother 
country  its  consumption  of  English 
goods,  232-233 ;  analogy  between 
ancient  Gaul  and,  235-236;  dangers 
to,  from  other  European  powers  than 
English,  237-238;  royal  Commission- 
ers sent  to  (1664),  243  ff.;  vessels  of, 
in  1671,  246  n. ;  renewed  attention 
drawn  to,  by  claims  of  Mason  and 
Gorges,  251  ff.;  irregular  trading  of, 
threatens  disruption  of  colonial  sys- 
tem, 255-261 ;  investigation  by  Lords 
of  Trade  of  irregular  trading  of,  262- 
264;  merchants  from,  summoned  be- 
fore Lords  of  Trade,  263-264;  Ran- 
dolph appointed  Collector  of  Customs 
in,   276-277;    Randolph's  suggestion 


of  uniting  colonies  constituting,  under 
one  general  governor,  292;  English 
plans  for  political  reconstruction  of, 
318  ff. ;  unification  of  colonies  into 
the  Dominion  of,  324  ff.;  dissolution 
of  Dominion  of,  IL  337,  351. 

Newfoundland,  fisheries  of,  as  a  school 
for  seamen,  I.  32,  IL  204,  221,  226; 
Baltimore's  province  of  Avalon  in, 
227  n.,  II.  203,  204,  221-222;  unique 
position  of,  as  a  colony,  I.  319;  im- 
portance of  fisheries  of,  II.  201 ;  vari- 
ous claims  of  patentees  of,  202;  dis- 
putes between  settlers  and  English 
fishermen  in,  202,  209-211,  220;  agita- 
tion for  appointment  of  a  royal  gov- 
ernor, 204-206;  regulations  recom- 
mended for,  by  Council  for  Planta- 
tions, 207-208;  naval  convoy  sent 
with  fishing  fleet  to,  208;  plan  of 
government  to  remove  settlers  from, 
208,  210-214;  renewed  agitation  after 
Dutch  war  for  royal  governor,  209  ff. ; 
Berry's  report  on  settlers  and  condi- 
tions in,  214-216 ;  reports  of  Downing, 
Poole,  and  Talbot  on,  216-219;  set- 
tlers allowed  to  stay  in,  but  no  gov- 
ernor appointed,  219-220;  size  of  fleet 
engaged  in  fisheries  of  (1680),  222  n. ; 
ordered  to  be  held  outside  of  trade 
regulations,  222 ;  regulations  for  ships 
engaged  in  fisheries,  222-223;  re- 
ported to  be  a  seat  of  illegal  trade, 
223;  New  England's  trade  to,  223, 
224,  225-227;  figures  of  the  fish- 
eries (1615-1684),  227-229;  French 
fisheries  in,  superior  to  EngUsh,  228- 
229;  on  the  whole,  a  valuable  im- 
perial asset,  229;  competition  of 
fisheries  of  New  England  with  those 
of,  256. 

Newfoundland  Company,  the,  IL  202. 

New  Hampshire,  claim  of  Robert  Mason 
to,  IL  251  ff.;  stress  laid  by  Mason 
upon  economic  value  of,  to  the  Empire, 
254 ;  Massachusetts  adjudged  by  Eng- 
lish authorities  to  have  no  jurisdiction 
over,  271 ;  establishment  of  Crown 
government  over,  278 ;  failure  of  royal 
government  in,  318  ff. ;  Cranfield's 
troubles    as    Governor    of,    320-322; 


I. 


I 

I 


m^mmmtBi^ 


- — ^•-»- 


^■» 


Ifi 


Hi 


\i 


II 


f 


\ 


\ 


374 


INDEX 


futile  efforts  of  Cranfield  to  enforce 
Mason's  rights  in,  321;  Cranfield's 
departure  from,  322;  included  in 
new  crown  colony  of  New  England, 
323. 

New  Jersey,  arguments  of  proprietors  of, 
concerning  emigration,  I.  22  n.  See 
Jerseys. 

New  Netherland,  acquisition  of,  by  Eng- 
lish, I.  343,  n.  341. 

New  Plymouth,  report  of  Charles  II's 
commission  on,  II.  244;  united  with 
crown  colony  of  New  England,  324; 
products  of,  326. 

New  Providence,  settlement  of,  II.  86; 
degenerates  into  a  resort  for  pirates, 
88. 

New  York,  James  II's  interest  in  develop- 
ment of,  I.  7;   statistics  of  trade  be- 
tween  England   and,   42;    restricted 
trade    with,    permitted    to    Scottish 
merchants,    88-89;    regular   garrison 
stationed   in,    115;    inclusion   of,   in 
Dominion  of  New  England,  226,  II. 
337>   350-351;    negroes  from  Mada- 
gascar in,  I.  374  n. ;  revenue  from,  as  a 
royal  province  under  James  II,  201- 
202 ;  acquisition  of,  by  English,  1.  334, 
II.  341 ;   development  of,  as  an  Eng- 
lish colony,  II.  337  ff. ;  industries  of, 
344,  345,  346 ;  ofl5cials  of  revenue  and 
customs  in,  351  n.;  charges  of  malad- 
ministration in,  352-354, 
Nicholas,  Sir  Edward,  member  of  Com- 
mittee of  Privy  Council,  I.  229,  230. 
Nicholson,    Francis,    appointed    Lieu- 
tenant-Governor of  New  England,  II. 
337. 
NicoUs,    Colonel   Richard,   quoted,   II. 
186;    a  Commissioner  to  visit  New 
England,  243;   capture  of  New  York 
by,  341-342. 
Noell,   Martin,   I.    231;    appointed   to 
Committee   for   Foreign   Plantations, 
233,  237 ;  interested  in  African  trading 
company,  327. 
North,  Roger,  quoted,  I.  160  n. 
North,  Sir  Dudley,  financier  and  econ- 
omist, I.   102  n.,   107;    bill  devised 
by,  levying  additional  duties  on  to- 
bacco and  sugar  (1685),  160. 


North  Carolina,  beginnings  of,  in  Albe- 
marle Sound  community,  II.  180,  191, 
194  ff. ;   trade  relations  of,  with  New 
England,  195-196,  198,  200;  trade  in 
tobacco  from,  195-196;    attempts  to 
collect   export   duties  on  tobacco  in, 
195-197;   customs  officials  appointed 
for,  196;    rebellion  in,  led  by  John 
Culpepper,  198-199;    population  and 
conditions  in,  in  1682,  200.    See  also 
Carolinas. 
Northern    Neck    of    Virginia,    troubles 
raised  by  crown  grants  of  land  in  the, 
I.  194-199,  n.  130  ff. 
Norwood,  Henry,  claims  quit-rent  rev- 
enue in  Virginia,  I.  193. 
Nova  Scotia,  acquired  by  English  during 
Interregnum,  I.  2 ;   question  of  dispo- 
sition   of,    upon    Restoration,    227; 
Temple  claim  to,  229 ;  French  demand 
for  restitution  of,   231;    restored  to 
France,  II.  315. 


Oath  of  fidelity  to  the  colony  imposed 
by  Massachusetts,  II.  274. 

O'Brien,  case  of  the  ship,  I.  66  n.,  301- 
303- 

Ofl&cials,  colonial  revenue  for  payment  of 
salaries  of,  I.  203-205,  208  ff. 

Old  Subsidy  (English  tariff  of  1660),  I. 
62  n.,  82,  129  ff.;  the  basis  of  the 
English  customs  revenue,  147. 

Order  in  Council  of  1621,  I.  59- 
60. 

Orgill,  Andrew,  on  tropical  colonization, 

I.  45-46. 
Osborne,  Sir  Thomas.    See  Danby,  Earl 

of. 

Osgood,  cited,  I.  120,  II.  96,  139,  142, 

304. 
Otter  skins,  imports  of,  to  England,  I. 

40  n. 

Over-population,  colonization  advocated 
as  a  remedy  for,  I.  19. 

Painter,  Sir  Paul,  I.  335. 
Palmer,  John,  cited,  II.  333  n. 
Pamphleteers,  on  the  brilliant  prospects 

of  the  CaroHnas,  II.  188. 
Panama,  capture  of,  by  Henry  Morgan, 

II.  61. 


i    ^ 


INDEX 


375 


Passes,  rules  for  issuing,  to  ships  trad- 
ing to  colonies,  II.  268. 

Penn,  William,  quoted,  I.  19-20,  23  n., 
36;  line  of  colonial  commercial  de- 
velopment sought  by,  55- 

Pennsylvania,  statistics  of  trade  between 
England  and,  I.  42 ;  sUght  commercial 
importance  of,  in  1688,  II.  338. 

Pepys,  Samuel,  quoted,  I.  10  n.,  311, 
333  n.,  II.  51 ;  cited,  I.  105  n.,  143, 
II.  50,  109,  134;  Secretary  of  the 
Admiralty,  I.  309 ;  mentioned,  II.  165. 

Perpetual  revenue  Act,  in  Virginia,  I. 
205-206;  proposed  for  Jamaica,  211. 

Perry,  Thomas,  captain  of  H.  M.  S. 
Deptford,  I.  312.  .   x      ^ 

Phipps,  William,  expedition  of,  I.  169, 

II.    102    n.;     activities    of,    against 

.  Spanish  trading  for  slaves  in  Jamaica, 

I-  365  n. 
Pimento,  produced  in  Jamaica,  II.  54, 

Pirates,  England's  protection  of  colonies 
against,  1. 121,  122-124;  levies  by  the 
Crown  on   goods  seized  from,   169; 
in   Caribbean  waters,  II.  56  ff-;    i^ 
South  Carolina,   191-194-    ^^^  ^^^" 
caneers. 
Placentia,  French  settlement  at,  II.  205. 
Plantation  colonies,  arguments  for  favor- 
ing, I.  44  ff-,  II-  47-48,  232;   devel- 
opment of,  by  negro  slavery,  I.  320  ff. 
Plantation  duties,  imposition  of,  by  Act 
of  1673,  I.  81-84;   work  of  Treasury 
in  enforcing,  262-264 ;  of  1673,  II.  256. 
"Plantation  Work,   the  Work  of  this 

Generation,"  pamphlet,  I.  18. 
Playfair,  cited,  I.  123,  124. 
Plowman,  Matthew,  Collector  at  New 

York,  II.  348  n.,  352  n. 
Pollexfen,  John,  cited,  I.  17  »•>  38  n., 

345  n. 
Pollock,  John,  quoted,  I.  254. 
Poll-tax,  revenue  from,  on  immigrants  to 
Virginia,  I.  206;    unrest  due  to  im- 
position of  a  general,  in  Virginia,  II. 
132, 136, 142 ;  a  main  cause  of  Bacon's 
rebellion,  163  n. 
Poole,  S.  L.,  quoted,  I.  126  n. 
Poole,  Sir  William,  report  by,  on  condi- 
tions in  Newfoundland,  II.  217-218. 


Popish  Plot,' I.  97,  II-  278,  279. 
Porcio,  Nicolas,  I.  363  ».,  364  n- 
Portugal,  alhance  of  England  and,  I.  5 ; 
refined  sugar  from,  imported  to  Eng- 
land, 150;    vessels  from,  engaged  in 
Newfoundland  fisheries,  II.  228  n. 
Potash,  production  of,  in  Virginia,  II. 

126,  127. 
Poundage  duties  granted  Charles  II  by 

Old  Subsidy,  I.  129. 
Povey,  Thomas,  quoted,  I.  i74  n.,  231, 
234 ;  appointed  to  Council  for  Foreign 
Plantations,  233,  236,  237;    criticism 
of  Council  for  Trade  and  Plantations 
in  his  papers,  253 ;  interested  in  Afri- 
can trading  companies,  327,  342. 
Povey,  William,  quoted,  I.  179  »- 
Poynings'  system  of  legislation,  attempt 
to  introduce  in  Virginia  and  Jamaica, 
I.  205  n.,  210-214. 
Preferential  features,  of  England's  fiscal 
system,  I.  127,  132  ff.;    advantages 
derived  from,  by  colonies,   135-137; 
given  by  Massachusetts  to  its  own 
shipping,  II.  246. 
Price,  W.  H.,  cited,  I.  372. 
Privateers,  m  the  West  Indies,  11.  56- 
59 ;   attempted  suppression  of,  by  Sir 
Thomas  Lynch,  63-64;   evolution  of, 
into  pirates,  72-74;    sailing  from  Ba- 
hamas, 89.    See  Buccaneers. 
Privy  Council,  character  and  functions 
of,  as  an  administrative  body,  I.  227 
ff . ;    appointment  of  a  Committee  of 
the  (1660),  228-229;    various  special 
committees  of  the,  229-230;  reorgani- 
zation of  work  of,  in  1668,  240. 
Prizes  of  war,  right  of  Crown  to  share 
of,  I.  170;    condemnation  of,  in  Ja- 
maica Admiralty  Court,  304. 
Proprietary  colonies,  fiscal  systems  of, 

I.  202 ;  political  organization  of,  316- 

317. 

Prothero,  R.  E.,  quoted,  I.  131  n- 

Providence,  seizure  of  the,  I.  96  n. 

Provisions,  exemption  of,  from  enact- 
ments in  Staple  Act  of  1663,  I.  78; 
exports  of,  from  England  to  the  colo- 
nies, 135  n. 

Puerto  Principe,  Morgan's   capture  ot, 

II.  60. 


B«i 


^•W 


376 


INDEX 


\t 


li 


II 


,. 


i 


. 


\ ' 


Quakers,  emigration  of,  to  America  I 
29 ;  protest  of,  against  negro  slavery 
323-  ^' 

Quarry,  Robert,  Secretary  of  South  Car- 
olina, II.    193;   removal   of,  for  col- 
lusion  with  Carolina  pirates,  193-194 
Quit-rent  revenue  in  Virginia,  difficulties 

r^^'/  :„^^^   ^-^    a°iounts   realized 
from  (1684-1690),  198  n. 

Quit-rents,  in  New  York  province,   I 
201-202 ;  m  Jamaica,  209,  214,  214  n  ' 

right  to  collect,  m  Virginia,  II.  132; 
mabihty  of  Mason  to  collect,  in  New 
Hampshire,  318-319;  Cranfield's 
vain  efforts  to  enforce  collection,  in 
New  Hampshire,  321. 


INDEX 


377 


Rabbeno,  Ugo,  quoted,  I.  20  n 
Randolph,  Bernard,  II.  328-329 
Randolph,  Edward,  Collector  of  Customs 
and  Deputy  Auditor  for  New  Eng- 

l^d,I.222  278,II.276-277;som-ceof 
payment  of  salaryof,  II.  28s;  quoted, 
374  n. ;   suggested  for  governorship  of 
Bermudas,   99  n.;   commissioned   by 
i^g   to   investigate   New   England 
261 ;  poor  reception  of,  in  Boston,  264  • 
prejudice  of,  excited  against  Massa- 
chusetts, 265;  detailed  report  of,  265- 
^?\^  '"^^orial  by,  attacking  validity 
of  Massachusetts  charter  and  recom- 
mending  settling  country  under  royal 
authonty,    269;     difficulties    of,    in 
Massachusetts,  280  &.;  "Narrative  of 
the  State  of  New  England  "  by,  281  n  • 
returns  to  England  and  again  urges 
abrogation  of  Massachusetts  charter 
290-292;   sent  back  to  New  England 

a'^tt-tT/r^'f'*  ^^''''  '^^-^93 ;  varied 
activities  of,  297  ff.;  particular 
grounds  of  hatred  of,  in  Massachusetts 
311-312;  the  moving  spirit  in  plan 
for  umfication  of  New  England,  324- 
offices   secured   by,   in   Dominion  o 

r^t      ^^^?^^'   ^'^'    ^^^^^^  as  Sec- 
retary  of  New  England,  33(^332 

Receiver-General  of  Revenues  of*  the 
Foreign  Plantations,  creation  of  office 
(1063),  I.  220  n. 

Reeves,  John,  cited,  I.  62  n. 


|Reresby,SirJohn,cited,I.i6on 
Revenue,    imperial,    from    sugar    and 
tobacco  imposts,  I.    166-168:    from 
vanous  sources  of  direct  taxation  of 
colomes,  168  S.;    derived  from  fines, 
forfeitures  wrecks,  prizes  of  war,  etc. 
168-171 ;   from  succession  to  colonial 
proprietors,   171   ff.;    farming  of,  in 
Barbados  and  Leeward  Islands,  186  ff  • 
acts    for    granting    perpetual,    from 
colonies,  205-206,  211;    granting  of, 
m  crown  colonies,  202  ff 
Reynell    Carew,  cited,  I.  '22  n.,   28  n  • 
quoted,  49  n. ;  on  the  benefits  from 

Rhode  Island,  charter  granted  to  (1663) 
n.  242;  royal  Commissioners  in' 
244;  Randolph  secures  writ  of  quo 
warranto  against,  324;  exports  and 
imports  of,  326;  incorporated  in  new 
crown  colony  of  New  England,  328. 
Rhodes,  Cecil,  proprietors  of  Carolinas 

contrasted  with,  II.  186-187 
Richards,  John,  sent  to  England  as  agent 

of  Massachusetts,  II.  293-295. 
Righton,  William,  cited  and  quoted  II 
94,  98  n.  '      ' 

Riots,  tobacco-plant-cutting,  in  Vir- 
ginia, II.  153-155. 

Ripley,  W.  Z.,  cited,  H.  163  n. 

Robinson  Sir  Robert,  Governor  of 
Bermudas,!  201,  II.  99-102;  candi- 
date for  governorship  of  Newfound- 

I     Ta    /  ;t^°^^    ""^   ^^^   England's 

trade  to  Newfoundland,  226  n 
Rogers,  J.  D.,  cited,  II.  201,  202,  220 
Root  W.T.,  cited,  1.300  n.        '        * 
Rousby  Christopher,  1. 99  n. ;  appointed 
Collector  of  Customs  in  Maryland,  278  • 
troubles  with  colonial  authorities.  II 
170-172;    murder  of,  173 
Routh,  E.  M.  G.,  cited,  I.  288,  II.  109, 

323. 
Royal  African  Company,  incorporation 
o^'  /•   341;    patentees   of,    341-^42  • 

trade  of  and  profits,  342-343;  horrors 
of  slave  trade  of,  343-346 ;  continuous 
disputes  of,  with  colonies,  346  ff. ;  the 
controversy  with  Jamaica  over  supply 
of  slaves,  353  ff.;  dealings  of,  with 
Virgima    and    Maryland,    367-369- 


agents  of,  in  ^^rglma,  368;  friction 
over  interlopers  in  the  West  African 
trade  monopoly,  369-378;  main  injury 
to,  from  competition,  the  rise  of 
prices  of  negroes  in  Africa,  378;  chief 
purposes  of,  attained,  though  at  cost 
of  friction  with  colonies,  379;  policy 
of  appointing  agents  of,  to  offic'al 
positions  in  colonies,  380-381. 

Royal  fifteenths  of  prizes  of  war  taken 
at  sea,  I.  170. 

Royal  provinces,  increase  in  number  of, 
in  Restoration  period,  I.  225-226. 

Ruijven,  Cornells  van,  Collector  at  New 
York,  II.  344- 

Rum,  export  of,  from  Barbados,  II.  30, 
31. 

Rupert,  Prince,  commercial  and  colonial 
activities  of,  I.  6. 

Russell,  Colonel  James,  I.  228. 

Russell,  James,  Boston  Naval  Officer,  II. 
297  n. 

Russell,  Sir  James,  controversy  between 
St.  Lo  and,  II.  43-44- 

Russia,  proposed  as  a  market  for  Virginia 
tobacco,  II.  152. 

Saba,  captured  from  Dutch,  II.  58. 

St.  Albans,  Earl  of,  land  grant  to,  in 

Virginia,  I.  194,  H-  130-131.  i33- 
St.  Eustatius,  taken  by  privateers,  II. 

S8. 

St.  Kitts,  request  of,  for  convicts,  I.  30 ; 
military  establishment  in,  115;  poor 
treatment  of  soldiers  in,  116 ;  disputes 
with  Royal  African  Company  over 
supply  of  slaves,  352  n. ;  complaints 
concerning  debtor  laws  in,  352  n.; 
conditions  at,  in  1671,  II.  36.  See 
Leeward  Islands. 

St.  Lo,  Captain,  1.  301-302,  309-310; 
activities  of,  in  Leeward  Islands,  II. 

43-44. 
Salaries  of  colonial  officials,  revenue  for 

payment  of,  I.  203-204. 

Salley,  A.  S.,  cited  and  quoted,  II.  86  n., 
90  n.,  180,  188  n. 

Salt,  exemption  of,  from  provisions  of 
Act  of  1663,  I.  78;  application  of 
Virginia  concerning  importation  of, 
from  European  ports,  II.   143-144; 


purchase  of,  for  the  Newfoundland 

fisheries,  m  European  ports,  222-223, 

224. 
Sandwich,  Earl  of,  member  of  special 

colonial  council,   I.    244;   opinion  of 

New  England  situation  by,  II.  233- 

234,  327  n. 
Sanford,  Peleg,  quoted,  I.  297  n.,  II. 

326. 
Santen,  Lucas,  New  York  Collector  of 

Customs,  II.    167  n.,   348,   352   n.; 

charges  by  Governor  Dongan  against, 

353- 

Santiago,  Cuba,  plundering  of,  by  Eng- 
lish force,  1.  328,  II.  57. 

Sargant,  E.  B.,  cited,  I.  70  n. 

Sarsaparilla,  duties  on,  by  tariff  of  1660, 

I.  64  n. 

Saxby,  H.,  cited,  I.  135. 

Sayle,  Governor,  on  fertility  of  the  Caro- 
linas, II.  181. 

Scelle,  Georges,  cited,  1.  330  n. ;  account 
by,  of  contracts  with  Spanish,  364  n. 

Schoolcraft,  H.  L.,  cited,  I.  326,  II.  34i- 

Scotland,  immigration  into  colonies  from, 
encouraged,  I.  31 ;  regulation  of  trade 
between  English  colonies  and,  by 
Navigation  Acts  of  1660  and  1663, 
85-91 ;  agitation  for  removal  of  trade 
restrictions   between   Barbados    and, 

II.  lo-ii,  17,  21  n.;  unlikelihood 
of  free  trade  between  Barbados  and, 
adding  to  island's  white  population, 
24-25 ;  request  for  free  trade  with,  by 
St.  Kitts  Council,  46 ;  trade  to  Massa- 
chusetts from,  287. 

Scott,  John,  cited,  1.  320  n.,  11.  10  n. 

Scott,  W.  R.,  cited,  1.  6, 14  n.,  169,  244  n., 
323,  335,  341,  II-  92;  on  the  agitation 
against  the  Bermuda  Company,  11. 
96  n. 

Scottish  Navigation  Act  of  1661,  I.  87. 

Sea  power,  early  realization  of  impor- 
tance of,  by  English,  1.  12,  16;  de- 
pendence of  safety  of  English  Empire 
upon  adequate,  11 2-1 13. 

Seayres,  John,  Royal  African  Company 
agent  in  Virginia,  I.  368  n. ;  quoted, 
371  n. 

Seeley,  "Growth  of  British  Policy"  by, 
cited,  I.  5,  8$. 


'"'I 


1^  I  HWI   ■— I    will " 


'Smm 


^1 


378 


INDEX 


INDEX 


: 


if 


■'7 


'I 


Seizures  of  prizes,  disputes  over,  I.  292- 

293;   courts  for  trial  of,  304-307;  by 

Randolph,    of    Massachusetts    ships, 

II.  283-284,  300,  330. 

Seligman,  E.  R.  A.,  library  of,  I.  151  n., 

341  n. 
Shaftesbury,  Eari  of,  quoted,  I.  5 ;  prom- 
inence of,  in  movement  toward 
colonial  and  commercial  expansion, 
7 ;  on  emigration  and  inmiigration,  20- 
21;  interest  of,  in  Council  of  Trade, 
242-243;  president  of  Council  for 
Trade  and  Plantations,  248 ;  dismissal 
of,  254;  a  patentee  of  Royal  African 
Company,  341.  See  also  Ashley, 
Lord. 
Shaw,  W.  A.,  cited  and  quoted,  I.  71  n., 

147  n. 
Shelf er,  quoted,  I.  167  n. 
Ship-building  in  Virginia,  II.  125. 
Shipping,  increase  in  English,  after  Navi- 
gation Act  of  1660, 1.  13-14;  eflfect  of 
American  colonial  trade  on  English, 
16-17;    figures  of,  from  England  in 
1690,  43;    protection  of  English,  by 
Navigation  Act  of  1660,  58  S.;  effect 
on  colonial,  of  Navigation  Act  of  1660, 
63-64 ;  discrimination  against  English, 
in   laws   of   Virginia,    206-208;    dis- 
crimination against    English,    in    Ja- 
maica laws,   214  n.;   failure  of  pref- 
erential treatment  of,  in  Virginia,  II. 
125,  128. 
Shrigley,  Nathaniel,  cited,  II.  169. 
Silk,    from    Carolinas,    exempted   from 
English  import  duties,  I.   55;  culti- 
vation of,  attempted  in  Virginia,  II. 
124  ff.;    gift  of,  to  Charles  II  from 
Virginia,  127  n.;   failure  of,  as  a  Vir- 
ginia product,  128. 
Slave  labor,  development  of  sugar  and 

tobacco  colonies  by,  I.  320  ff. 
Slaves,  number  of,  in  West  Indies  (1666- 
1670),  I.  320  n.;  prices  of,  331,  337, 
340,  346,  347  n.,  348  n.,  349,  353,  355 ; 
controversy  between  Barbados  and  the 
African  Company  over,  335-340; 
terrific  mortality  among,  in  transit, 
343-346;  number  of,  imported  into 
Jamaica  (1680-1688),  357  n.;  rise  in 
price  of,  in  Africa,  due  to  competition 


of  interloping  traders,  378;  increase  in 
number  of,  in  Barbados  (1643-1666), 
II.  10;  increase  in,  in  Barbados  from 
1668  to  1688,  30;  number  of,  in  Lee- 
ward Islands  (1678),  37  n. ;  number  of, 
in  Jamaica  in  1675,  79. 
Slave-ships,  list  of,  I.  334  n. 
Slave-trade,  interest  of  England  in  the 
African,  I.  6-7 ;   English  share  of,  44, 
342-343;    reasons  impelling  England 
to  share  in,  323-325;  Spanish  vessels 
authorized  to  engage  in,  with  West 
Indies,  104,  129  n.;   illegal  trade  to 
West  Indies,  371  ff. 
Slingesby,    Henry,    member   of   special 

colonial  council,  I.  244. 
Smith,  Goldwin,  cited,  I.  85. 
Smith,  Robert,  agent  of  Virginia  in  Eng- 
land, II.  132. 
Smith,  W.  H.,  cited,  I.  323. 
Snow,  Alpheus  H.,  quoted,  I.  233  n. 
Sothell,  Seth,  I.  122  n.,  123, 11,  198-199. 
Southampton,  Earl  of,  member  of  Com- 
mittee of  Privy  Council,  I.  229;  ap- 
pointed to  Council  for  Foreign  Plan- 
tations, 232. 
South  Carolina,  a  type  of  the  plantation 
colony,  I,  55 ;  as  a  retreat  for  pirates, 
II-    73-74,    191-193;     founding    of, 
181.    See  Carolinas. 
Southwell,  Sir  Robert,  quoted,  I.  9  n., 
123  n.;  work  of,  in  connection  with 
Lords  of  Trade,  256-257;  requests  Sir 
George  Downing  to  report  on   rules 
for  issuing  passes,  II.  268  n. 
Spanish,  English  treaty  of  1656  with,  I. 
4-5;    conflict  between  English  and, 
in  West  Indies,  327  ff.;    allowed  to 
trade  to  West  Indies  for  purchase  of 
negroes,  329,  360,  361-363 ;  opposition 
to,  in  Jamaica,  364-366;  attacks  of  buc- 
caneers on,  II.  57, 62 ;  troubles  between 
English  and,  over  logwood  cutting,  65 
ff. ;   hostile  collisions  between  vessels 
sailing  from  Bahamas  and  the,  89. 
Spencer,  Nicholas,  Secretary  of  Virginia 
and   Collector  of   Customs,  I.    279; 
quoted,    II.    136  n.;   cited,   148-149, 
151,    153  n. ;   remedy   for   economic 
conditions  in  Virginia   proposed   by, 
154-1SS. 


379 


Spices,  attempt  to  produce,  in  Jamaica, 

11.  54. 

"Spiriting"  of  servants  for  American 

colonies,  I.  33. 

Staple  Act  of  1663,  I.  31  n.,  66;  an 
extension  of  Navigation  Act  of  1660, 
76-79;  provisions  in,  affecting  Irish 
colonial  trade,  92  ff. ;  effects  of,  on 
Barbados,  II.  10-13;  the  basis  for 
objections  to,  by  Massachusetts,  309- 
310. 

Stapleton,  Governor  of  Leeward  Islands, 
I.  iisn.,  116,  269n.,  3oon.,3o6,309n., 
352,  376 ;  project  of  exchanging  Mont- 
serrat  for  French  portions  of  St. 
Kitts,  II.  23;  on  French  and  English 
governments  in  Leeward  Islands,  24 ; 
appointment  as  Governor,  35;  cited, 
37,  38,  39;  enforcement  of  laws  of 
trade  by,  41-43 ;  death  of,  43. 

Start,  cited,  I.  71  n. 

Stede,  Edwyn,  customs  official  in  Bar- 
bados, I.  171  n.,  279,  286;  quoted,  165, 
190  n.,  II.  27;  an  agent  of  the 
Royal  African  Company  as  well  as  a 
government  official,  I.  372,  380. 

"  Stop  of  the  Exchequer,"  the,  I.  148. 

Stoughton,  William,  agent  of  Massachu- 
setts in  England,  II.  267,  271-273, 
274  n.;  quoted,  307  n. ;  position  taken 
by,  upon  loss  of  charter  by  Massachu- 
setts, 314  n. 

Stuyvesant,  Peter,  II.  342,  343. 

Style,  John,  on  the  West  Indian  priva- 
teers, II.  63. 

Sugar,  imports  of^  to  England  (1662- 
1663,  1 668-1 669),  I.  40  n.;  from  Bar- 
bados, 47-48 ;  effect  on  colonial  export 
trade  in,  of  Navigation  Act  of  1660, 
72 ;  duties  on,  under  Acts  of  1660  and 
1673,  82-83,  130,  133 ;  lack  of  clear- 
ness of  classification  of,  in  Act  of  1660, 
134  n. ;  advantageous  effects  on,  of 
preferential  treatment,  136 ;  attempts 
in  167 1  to  levy  additional  duties  on, 
148  ff. ;  effect  on  Brazilian,  of  prefer- 
ential treatment  of  colonial  product, 
150;  refining  of,  in  England  and  Bar- 
bados, 151 ;  failure  of  bill  to  impose 
additional  duties  on,  159;  additional 
duties  levied  on,  in  1685,  160-161; 


method  of  throwing  burden  of  duties 
on  the  consumer,  162 ;  advantages  and 
disadvantages  of  impost  of  1685, 166- 
168;  discontinuance  of  duty  on,  in 
1693, 167 ;  effect  of  advent  of  industry 
on  demand  for  slaves,  323;  dissatis- 
faction in  Barbados  over  fall  in  price 
of,  II.  I  ff. ;  immense  increase  in 
wealth  of  Barbados  due  to,  9-10; 
French  trade  regulations  concerning, 
in  West  Indies,  compared  with  Eng- 
lish, 22-24;  chief  commodity  of  Lee- 
ward Islands,  37;  exports  of,  from 
Leeward  Islands,  in  1676,  37-38;  pro- 
duction and  export  of,  from  Jamaica, 
55-56,  79-81. 

Sugar-cane,  introduction  of,  into  Bar- 
bados, I.  172  n. 

Sugar  refining  in  England  and  Barbados, 
I.  151. 

Sun-dried  sugar,  I.  152  n. 

Surinam,  colony  of,  I.  53;  ceded  to 
Dutch,  334. 

Surveyor  and  Auditor  General  of  reve- 
nues in  America,  appointment  of 
Blathwayt  as,  I.  220-221. 

Surveyors,  appointment  of  salaried,  by 
Conmiissioners  of  the  Customs,  I.  276- 
277. 

Swallow,  case  of  the  seized  ship,  I.  305  n. 

Talbot,  Captain  Charles,  I.  305  n.,  310; 

report  on  Newfoundland  by,  II.  218- 

219. 
Talbot,  George,  murderer  of  Christopher 

Rousby,  II.  173. 
Tangier,  ceded  to  England,  I.  5. 
Temple  claim  to  Nova  Scotia,  I.  229. 
Thomas,  Dalby,  cited  and  quoted,  I.  23, 

48-49,  II.  24,  30,  62. 
Thomson,    Major    Robert,   quoted,  11. 

257  n. 
Thornborough,  Colonel,  I.  349,  II.  14  n., 

15. 
Tillinghast,  J.  A.,  cited,  I.  322. 

Titus,  Silas,  member  of  special  colonial 
council,  I.  244. 

Tobacco,  freight  rates  on,  from  Virginia 
to  England,  I.  17  n.;  statistics  of  im- 
ports of  (166 2-1 663, 1 668-1 669),  40  n.; 
I     limitations  on  colonial  export  trade  in. 


!    k 


r , 


'I  r!i. 


itm'Mm-<i 


rp^WP""*" 


-*HV~ 


,  i 


380 


INDEX 


INDEX 


381 


rfii 


I  ! 


II 


^i 


,1 


i 


41 


} ' 

1 

1 

t 

1 

by  Navigation  Act  of  1660,  72 ;  duties 
on,  under  Acts  of  1660  and  1673,  82- 
83,  ^33 ;    Act  prohibiting  growing  of, 
in  England  and  Ireland,  92  n. ;  effects 
of  prohibition  of  direct  trade  between 
Ireland  and  colonies  in,  94-95 ;  illegal 
importation  of,  into  Ireland,  95-96; 
appraisal  of,  for  levying  duty  under 
Old  Subsidy,  130 ;  advantageous  effects 
on,   of   preferential   treatment,    136; 
imports  to  England  of  Spanish  and  of 
English  colonial,  contrasted,  136  n.; 
steps  leading  to  prohibition  of  produc- 
tion in  England  and  Ireland,  138-139 ; 
diflSculty  of  enforcing  law  forbidding 
raising,  in  England,  140-146 ;  attempts 
in  1671  to  levy  additional  duties  on, 
148-149;     additional    duties    on,    in 
1685, 160 ;  method  of  throwing  burden 
of  duties  on  the  consumer,  162;   op- 
position in  colonies  to  new  impost  on, 
162-164;    advantages  and  disadvan- 
tages of  impost  of  1685,  166-168;  re- 
newal of  duties  on,  in  1693,  167 ;  pay- 
ment of  Virginia  quit-rent  revenue  in, 
193;    superseded  by  money  for  pay- 
ment of  quit-reiits,  197;   illegal  ship- 
ment  of,    to   New   Netherland   and 
Europe,    272;     ofl&cers   sent   out   by 
Farmers  of  Customs  to  prevent  illegal 
trade  in,  273 ;  production  in  Leeward 
Islands  in  1660,  II.  32;  abandonment 
of  production  in  Leeward  Islands,  37; 
staple    crop    of    Bermudas,    90-91; 
amount  produced  in  Bermudas,  91; 
illegal  exportation  of,  91-94;    policy 
of  home  government  toward,  in  Vir- 
ginia and  Maryland,  104-108;    price 
of  (1649-1662),  and  attempt  to  cur- 
tail production  of,  in  Virginia  (1661), 
116  ff.;    failure  of  plans  for  cessation 
of  planting,  in  Vh-ginia  and  Maryland, 
121,    123-124;     remains    the    staple 
product   of  Virginia,  128-129;    over- 
production of,  in  Virginia,  leading  to 
crisis  of  1680,  148;    renewed  agitation 
for  cessation  of  planting  in  Virginia 
after   Bacon's   rebellion,    148  ff. ;  de- 
struction of  crops  of,  in  Virginia  (1682), 
153;    later  efforts  to  curtail  crop  in 
Virginia,  157-158;    production  of,  in 


Maryland,  167-169;   in  North  Caro- 
lina, 195. 

Tonnage,  revenue  from  dues  in  Virginia, 
I.  206. 

Tonnage  and  Poundage  Act  of  1660,  I, 
129  ff. 

Tonnage  duties  granted  Charles  11  by 
Old  Subsidy,  I.  129, 

Tools,  exemption  of  planters',  from  cus- 
toms duties,  I.  133  n. 

Toppan,  cited,  I.  296,  297,  374  n.,  II. 
175,  248  n.,  260,  261,  265,  269  ff., 
314  n.,  317,  324  ff.,  352  n. 

Tortoise-shell,  imports  of,  to  England,  I. 
40  n. 

Treasure,  recovery  of  sunken,  I.  169- 
170,  II.  102. 

Treasury,  work  of  department  in  execu- 
tion of  laws  of  trade  and  navigation, 
I.  259-260,  264. 

Trevelyan,  G.  M.,  cited,  I.  30. 

Tropical  colonization,  arguments  in  favor 
of,  I.  44  ff.,  II.  232 ;  English  territorial 
expansion  takes  an  opposite  coiu-se  to, 
I.  53 ;  interest  of  Restoration  govern- 
ment in,  shown  by  retention  of  Ja- 
maica, II.  47-48. 

Trott,  Perient,  opponent  of  Bermuda 
Company's  monopoly,  II.  92,  94. 

Trott,  Samuel,  quoted,  II.  98  n. 

Turner,  E.  R.,  cited,  I.  323. 

Turtle  industry  of  Jamaica,  II.  82, 
83  n. 


Van    Rensselaer,    Mrs.    S.,    cited,    I. 
281  n. 

Vaughan,  Lord,  Governor  of  Jamaica,  I. 
210,  353,  3^2,  S73;  troubles  of,  over 
logwood  cutting  and  privateers,  II.  69- 
70;  on  New  England  and  the  logwood 
trade,  256  n. 

Vera  Cruz,  raid  on,  by  buccaneers,  II. 
192. 

Virginia,  freight  rates  on  tobacco  from, 
1. 17  n. ;  secures  exemption  from  trans- 
portation of  convicts  to,  30 ;  statistics 
of  trade  between  England  and,  42  n. ; 
military  establishment  in,  after 
Bacon's  rebellion,  115,  11 7-1 18,  II. 
141;  opposition  in,  to  impost  on  to- 
bacco (1685),  I.  162-163;   difficulties 


over  collection  of  quit-rent  revenue  in, 
192  ff. ;    revenue  from  quit-rents  in 
(1684-1690),  198  n. ;  revenue  for  pay- 
ment of  salary  of  Governor  of,  204-205 ; 
establishment  of  a  perpetual  revenue  in, 
205-206 ;   discrimination  against  Eng- 
lish   shipping    in    laws   of,    206-208; 
amount  of  revenue  from,  208  n. ;   ap- 
pointment of  Digges  to  act  for  customs 
department  in,  275,  276;  collectors  of 
customs  in,  278,  279;  admiralty  court 
in,  297-298 ;  difficulties  of  naval  com- 
manders in  preventing  illegal  trading 
to,  310-314,  11.  162-167;  slaves  in,  I. 
320  n.,  367 ;  limited  business  of  Royal 
African     Company    with,     367-369; 
illicit  trade  in  negroes  to,  375 ;  policy 
of  English  government  toward  tobacco 
industry  in,  II.  104  ff.;    attempts  to 
curtail  tobacco  output  of,  and  diver- 
sify economic  life,  116  ff.;  encourage- 
ment of  silk,  flax,  ship-building,  and 
other  industries  in,  124  ff.;   failure  of 
projects  regarding  other  products  than 
tobacco,  127-129;  population  in  1671, 
129,  148;  imrest  in,  due  to  King's  ill- 
advised  land  grants,  133  ff. ;  oligarchi- 
cal system  of  government  in,  134-137 ; 
Bacon's  rebellion,  137-139;   recall  of 
Berkeley  and  sending  of  commission- 
ers and  soldiers,  140- 141 ;  connection 
of  laws  of  trade  and  navigation  with 
uprisings   in,   143    ff.;     renewed  agi- 
tation for  cessation  of  tobacco  plant- 
ing in  (1680),  148  ff.;  illegal  trade  in, 
during  Governor  Howard's  adminis- 
tration, 159  ff. 
Virginia  Act  of  1684,  I-  208  n. 

Waldem,  Richard,  II.  320,  321. 
Waller,    Edmund,    member    of    special 

colonial  council,  I.  244. 
Washington,  John,  collector  of  customs 

in  Virginia,  I.  279. 
Wentworth,  Hugh,  11.  86-87. 
Wentworth,  John,  Govcmoi  of  Bahamas, 

II.  86,  87-88. 
West,   Joseph,    customs    collector    ard 

Governor  of  South  Carolina    [    279, 

n.  181. 

West    Africa,    trade    to.    See    African 


Company  and  Royal   African  Com- 
pany. 
Western  Adventurers,  the,  II.  202. 
Western  Charter,  the,  II.  203,  220. 
West  Indies,  early  possessions  in,  of  the 
English,  I.  2,  5 ;  statistics  of  trade  be- 
tween England  and,  40  n.,  42  n.,  43 ; 
arguments  for  the  colonization  of,  45 
ff . ;  rise  of,  to  wealth  and  prosperity, 
55 ;  trade  in  products  of,  confined  to 
England  and  her  colonies,  by  Naviga- 
tion Act  of  1660, 72  ff. ;  colonial  military 
establishment  in,   114-116;    suppres- 
sion of  buccaneers  in,  121 ;  question  of 
the  Carlisle  patent  in,  171;  effects  of 
war  with  Dutch  felt  by,  183 ;  develop- 
ment of,  by  African  slave  labor,  320  ff. 
See  Barbados,  Jamaica,  and  Leeward 
Islands. 
Whale   fishery,  of   the    Bermudas,    II. 
90,   102;    off    Long    Island,   N.    Y., 
344. 
Wheat,  exportation  of,  from  New  York 

(1678),  IL  345  n. 
Wheler,   Captain,  report  by,  on  New- 
foimdland    trade     (1684),    H.     225, 
227  n 
Wheler,  Sir  Charles,  first  Governor  of 
Leeward  Islands,  I.  189  n.,  249,  299, 
351,  II.  34;    unsatisfactory  conduct 
and  recall  of,  II.  34-35 ;  attempted  sup- 
pression by,  of  illegal  trading,  40. 
Whitfield,  Daniel,  II.  276. 
Whitworth,  Sir  Charles,  cited,  I.  15  n., 

41  n. 
Williams,  Sir  William,  opinion  by,  II. 

76. 
Williamson,  Sir  Joseph,  I.  9,  242 ;  quoted 

and  cited,  73  n.,  182  n.,  192. 
Willoughby,  Francis,  Lord,  proprietor 
and  later  Governor  of  Barbados,  I. 
173-176;  measures  taken  by,  to  gain 
CxOTvn  a  revenue  from  Barbados,  1 78- 
180;  ib'sputes  and  difficulties  of,  over 
application  of  revenue,  183-184;  a 
member  of  Council  for  Foreign  Plan- 
tations, 231;  protests  of,  against 
government  trade  regulations  as 
affecting  sugar,  II.  7-8;  on  suffering 
of  Leeward  Islands  from  laws  of  trade 
and  navigation,  32-33. 


I  1 


Miaai^a 


llf 


u 


i 


fit 

iff 


382 


INDEX 


WilIoughby,Wimam,  Lord,  1. 158 ;  follows 
brother  in  government  of  Caribbee 
Islands,  184,  II.  9;  troubles  of,  over 
four  and  a  half  per  cent  revenue,  I. 
184-187;  on  negro  slaves,  321;  letter 
of,  to  King  on  state  of  Barbados  and 
suggesting  remedies,  II.  lo-ii;  death 
of,  15. 

Willson,  Beckles,  cited,  I.  6. 

Wilson,  Reginald,  official  in  Jamaica,  I. 
222,  271  n. 

Wilson,  Samuel,  pamphleteer,  cited,  II. 
188  n.,  189. 

Winch,  Sir  Humphrey,  I.  244. 

Wmdsor,  Lord,  Governor  of  Jamaica,  I. 
327,  II,  50. 

Wines,  duties  on,  in  Navigation  Act  of 
1660,  I.  62  n. ;  provisions  concerning, 
in  Act  of  1663,  78-79 ;  tonnage  duties 
on,  in  Old  Subsidy,  129;  Virginia  Act 
of  1684  imposing  duties  on,  208  n. ;  im- 
ported into  Jamaica  from  the  Made- 
iras, II.  82 ;  application  of  Virginia  for 
extension  of  privileges  as  to  importa- 
tion of,  143-144;   illegal  trade  in,  by 
way  of  Newfoundland,  223 ;  question 
of  legality  of  importation  of,  to  Mas- 
sachusetts from  Canary  Islands,  287. 
Winslow,  Governor,  quoted,  I.  297  n.; 
on  trade  of  Plymouth,  II.  326. 


Winthrop,  John,  Jr.,  on  exports  of  Con- 
necticut, II.  245  n. 

Wolstenholme,  Sir  John,  quoted,  I.  no, 
II.  237  n. ;  a  member  of  Council  for 
Trade,  I.  235. 

Wormley,  Ralph,  Collector  of  Customs 
in  Virginia,  I.  279. 

Worsley,  Benjamin,  member  of  Council 
of  Trade  (1668),  I.  243 ;  salary  granted 
to,  244  n.;  appointed  secretary  of 
Council  for  Trade  and  Plantations, 
248. 

Wrecks,  Crown  rights  to  share  of 
proceeds  from,  I.  169-170,  II. 
102  n. 

Wybome,  Captain,  memorial  of,  on 
Massachusetts'  illegal  trade,  II.  257- 
258. 

Yellowes,  ex-privateer,  logwood  vessels 
captured  by,  II.  67. 

Yucatan,  cutting  of  logwood  in,  by 
English,  I.  360-361,  II.  64,  65 ;  Spanish 
reprisals  for  logwood  cutting  in,  II. 
67-68;  temporary  settlements  of 
English  in,  68;  indeterminate  status 
of  logwood  settlements  in,  77  n. ;  im- 
ports to  Jamaica  from,  82;  position 
acquired  by  New  England  in  logwood 
trade  of,  256. 


I    * 

<    > 


I ' »  - 


•ywiw.! 


TTHE  following  pages  contain  advertisements 
of  Macmillan  books  by  the  same  author 


;; 


1 1 


i 


i 


» 


I 
I 


I  If 


BRITISH  COLONIAL  POLICY 

1754-1765 
By  GEORGE  LOUIS  BEER 


Cloth    8vo    xii  +  327  pages    $2.00  net 


"  Mr.  Beer  has  treated  the  period  in  question  with  a  fulness 
of  knowledge  and  an  absence  of  bias  greater  than  those  of  any 
previous  historian."  —  T/ie  English  Historical  Review, 

"  Mr.  Beer's  new  book  on  an  old  subject  will  add  to  the  repu- 
tation he  has  already  won  in  this  field.  ...  It  is  primarily  a 
piece  of  imperial  economic  history,  worked  up  from  unpublished 
sources  of  information  —  the  State  papers,  *  virtually  undisturbed 
since  they  were  filed  away  a  century  and  a  half  ago.'  To  these 
Mr.  Beer  has  added  the  contemporary  pamphlet  literature,  and 
a  mass  of  other  information  drawn  from  journals,  colonial 
records,  and  the  Historical  Manuscripts  Commission.  The  re- 
sult is  a  book  exceedingly  well  documented,  but  also  thoroughly 
readable,  because  its  subject-matter,  intrinsically  interesting,  is 
handled  in  an  interesting  way.  And  the  wealth  of  matter  from 
the  unpublished  sources  in  the  elaborate  notes  makes  the  volume 
a  valuable  book  of  reference  to  critical  students."  —  The  Eco- 
nomic Journal. 

"  Mr.  Beer  has  given  us  a  well-reasoned,  and  in  the  main  con- 
vincing, study  of  eighteenth-century  imperial  problems.  The 
book  shows  throughout  unusual  mastery  of  printed  and  manu- 
script sources." — Political  Science  Quarterly, 

"  It  is  strange,  in  view  of  the  absorbing  interest  which 
Americans  have  in  the  history  of  the  Revolution,  that  no  ade- 
quate study  has  ever  been  made  of  the  deeper  causes  of  that 
event.  .  .  .     Mr.  Beer  now  comes  before  us  with  a  new  essay 


ii 


I 

i  ■ 


! 


\ 


)       \ 


m^ 


\w 


;ir 


t! 


upon  the  subject.  For  some  years  he  has  been  known  as  a 
student  of  England's  commercial  policy  and  a  writer  of  marked 
ability  in  dealing  with  problems  of  this  nature.  For  the  writing 
of  this  essay,  which  is  but  the  first  part  of  a  larger  whole,  he 
has  made  unusual  preparations.  No  one  before  him  has  ever 
attempted  to  examine  in  detail  or  systematically  the  evidence 
which  the  British  archives  furnish.  ...  He  has  brushed  aside 
all  secondary  considerations  that  obscure  the  main  issue,  and 
has  presented  in  all  its  seeming  hopelessness  the  one  cause  that 
made  the  Revolution  inevitable."  —  T^^  Evening  Post  and  The 
Nation^  New  York. 

"The  writer  of  this  notably  excellent  historical  essay  is  a 
historian  who  studies  the  original  sources  with  tireless  industry. 
He  is,  moreover,  master  of  an  admirably  clear,  succinct,  and 
luminous  mode  of  presentation  of  historical  facts  and  causes. 
Although  he  confines  himself  to  the  one  decade,  his  essay  makes 
that  so  intelligible  that  it  does  much  to  illuminate  a  vastly  wider 

range   of   historical   movement,    struggle,    and   evolution." 

Tribune^  Chicago. 

"  From  all  the  preceding  books  upon  his  subject  and  period, 
Mr.  Beer's  Bntish  Colonial  Policy y  1754-176$,  differs  radically 
in  respect  either  of  its  method  or  of  its  point  of  view.  From 
most  of  its  predecessors  it  differs  in  both  respects.  And  its 
differences,  with  scarcely  an  exception,  are  to  Mr.  Beer's  credit 
and  to  his  reader's  profit.  ...  It  constitutes,  in  the  reviewer's 
opinion,  the  most  substantial  contribution  to  an  understanding 
of  the  causes  of  the  American  Revolution  that  has  appeared 
since  Mellen  Chamberlain  wrote  his  chapter  for  the  sixth  volume 
of  Winsor's  Narrative  and  Critical  History,  twenty  years  ago ; 
while  upon  its  own  direct  subject  it  is  not  only  unrivalled  but 
unapproached  by  any  one."  —  The  American  Historical  Review, 


THE   MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Fublisliers  64-66  FiftOi  Ayenne  New  York 


Origins  of  the  British  Colonial  System 

1578-1660 
By  GEORGE  LOUIS  BEER 


Cloth    8vo    x-^  438  pages    $3.00  net 


"  The  third  contribution  of  Mr.  G.  L.  Beer  to  the  history  of 
the  policy  of  Great  Britain  towards  her  American  colonies  main- 
tains the  high  standard  of  scholarship  established  by  the  author 
in  his  previous  works."  —  Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of 
Political  Science. 

"  L'ouvrage  de  M.  Beer  forme  une  excellente  introduction  ^ 
I'histoire  du  syst^me  colonial  qui  fut  applique  dans  I'empire 
brittanique  avant  I'dpoque  du  libre-6change.  .  .  .  EUe  a  6t6 
admirablement  pr6sent^e  par  M.  Beer  dans  une  s6rie  de  chapitres 
substantiels,  remplis  de  faits  puis6s  aux  sources  les  plus  varices 
et  bien  choisis."— i^^z^^^  Historique. 

"  In  this  and  his  preceding  volume  Mr.  Beer  has  rendered  an 
important  service  both  to  the  history  of  the  American  colonies 
and  to  economic  history.  No  student  of  this  or  any  other  period, 
whatever  his  predispositions,  can  fail  to  welcome  a  work  which 
is  so  effective  and  so  satisfying  in  its  conclusions  as  this." 
—  Political  Science  Quarterly. 

"  In  1907  Mr.  Beer  issued  the  first  volume  of  his  series  upon 
the  old  colonial  policy  of  Great  Britain,  in  which  he  presented  in 
a  new  and  convincing  fashion  the  fundamental  causes  of  the 


r 


Ill 


II 


11 


separation  of  the  colonies  from  the  mother  country.  He  now 
turns  back  to  the  beginnings  of  his  subject  and  analyzes  with 
great  thoroughness  and  skill  the  origins  of  British  policy."— 7:^^ 
American  Historical  Review, 

"  In  method  Mr.  Beer's  work  leaves  little  to  be  desired.  His 
research  has  been  exhaustive,  his  point  of  view  is  that  of  the 
scientific  historian,  his  grasp  of  the  larger  aspects  of  world- 
history  is  firm  and  comprehensive."  —  7>^^  Nation  and  The 
Evening  Post,  New  York. 

"  No  mere  enumeration  of  chapter  subjects  can  convey  an  ade- 
quate idea  of  the  richness  of  Mr.  Beer's  volumes  for  the  economic 
historian  of  our  colonial  period.  Almost  every  page  abounds 
with  information  or  suggestion."—  The  Economic  Bulletin, 

"  One  of  the  most  remarkable  contributions  to  the  historical 
literature  of  this  country  which  it  has  been  my  pleasure  to  read 
is  George  Louis  Beer's  newly  published  volume,  The  Origins 
of  the  British  Colonial  System,  1 578-1660,  .  .  .  What  makes 
Mr.  Beer's  work  remarkable  and  distinctive  is  the  fact  that, 
unlike  most  of  the  historians  of  that  period,  he  recognizes  from' 
the  very  first  that  the  political  systems  and  developments  of  the 
time  cannot  be  understood  apart  from  the  prevailing  economic 
conditions.  .  .  .  Such  equipment  and  temper  as  Mr.  Beer 
brings  to  the  undertaking  ought  to  result  in  a  work  of  monu- 
mental importance."  —  The  International  Socialist  Review. 


\ 


THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

PubUsliers  64-66  Pifth  Avenue  New  York 


■  ■■."    '; 


\ 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 

This  book  is  due  on  the  date  indicated  below,  or  at  the 
expiration  of  a  definite  period  after  the  date  of  borrowing, 
as  provided  by  the  rules  of  the  Library  or  by  special  ar- 
rangement with  the  Librarian  in  charge. 


DATE  BORROWED 


♦l^V 


^ 


rwL 


12 


^  1^*  r. 


|i*#. 


OCn  1  194i) 


imSi'Si 


mu 


DATE  DUE 


M. 


946 


^ 


iia^ 


fo/-^ 


t  7  195^ 


ia(  I  1 40)  M  I  oo 


\  a  'Sij, 


1?^ 


DATE  BORROWED 


4f 

DATEJIUE 


^ 


-i^d' 


■?^ 


.O* 


^ 


^    -^ 


■^ 


r  o 


<? 


?r^ 


'  A     <i 


X* 


i-^ 
..^i^ 
^^7^ 


<l"<. 

^Jl 


B^ 


^ 
^ 


F 


WiT^ 


ssv 


\  B 

^^B  S**' 

il 

Si 

l^^B^^M^ 

_ail^ 

—  i 

ittmaJtBm 

D997 • ? 

Br^ 

V.2 

Beer,   G.L. 

The  old  colonial  system. 


pt.  1 


4 


i (j";^/* 


MAR  1 7  196F 


7^37P=v 


APR    6196& 


— -■•    I 


.    \ 


'it'' 


^997-^ 


V.^ 


I 


k^\{  z  6 1^^:^ 


-4'^^ 


c^ 


3^1?'^' 


'-.,>  •^■  :- 


^:4^, 


i^  «^  ^"* 


..^ilti*  '-i 


-r 


-  ^ 


-^^^:-A 


?%^'*'^-' 


1    ^ 


rf-y^A.''^ 


.-.•-•-•••.•w-r.  •.-.-.  •.-.-. 


.*•     •     '     •    ^     •■    -     < 


•      4      •     «     «      •     • 


.-:'.'J*»T. -.-..-. 


•  •  •  •  *  *, •••  ■  • ,  »» ••• 


►•^         •-■••        ••^        ^ 


1  Jti  .. 


X    all 


atjn:.' 


1    r~E;: 


^  SB^ 


52 


-■OH:-. 


^fc-r.'- 


^fe-4-; 


t-^S* 


o<i-- 


TStSSSt^r^'    ' 


^iSS 


i^.- 

i:!^- 

'                 "-                                  '^"1.                         .                           1 

-.Xi'- 

■                   -,                 _■                         ^,-^              ^                   .                   . 

4=U^.  • 

■^    ^-^  z'Z-r:    •--  • 

c«Cf- : 

--33^  J'. 

.^^k" 

"^«:--; 

^«  sgT';<^     - 

^H;- 

'"'-*:'*     ■     '  "       . ; .". 

■rM:-.    - 

•~xtirr'   '               '' 

-—» -v-#-  -  - 

5?^:; 

*  •       .-  V  r 

-^.-ncr-. 

'-:----:■-.    ; 

i^- 

^■^ 

-  , :     .  ,  _   ,  .       ■ 

5fej- 

'■i^5*i^?3 


■-    ^i 


->  ■■     -  ■•  ,     .  -       <*\,  ■;**''-■■■'    >  V  "  n"       ''  ■  .- 


^•?^^ 


:^'^^:^t- 


ffl^ 


vs-i #«*- j-t*  ~2 


i,:i^-^li?:'^ 


END  OF 
TITLE 


